llliiillifliiin 


9      a_  ^B  bgb  fl.,q 


GROSS  LITERARY  FRAUD  EXPOSED; 


RELATINa  TO  THE  PUBLICATION  OF 


WORCESTER'S  DICTIONARY 


IN    LONDON: 


TOGETHER  WITH 


THREE    APPENDIXES; 


INCLUDING 

THE  ANSWER  OF  S.  CONVERSE  TO  AN  ATTACK  ON  HIM 
BY  ]VIESSRS  G.  &  C.  MERRIAM. 


P 


^ 


.      "  BOSTON: 

NKS,    HICKLING,    AND    SWAN 
1854. 


(^ 


\ 


\ 


CAHBRIDax: 
HOTCALF  AKD  COMPANY,  STEEEOTTPERS  AND  PBINTBBS. 


\ 


Cambridge,  September  30, 1853. 
Messrs.  Jenks,  Hickling,  &  Swan:  — 

Gentlemen,  —  The  fact  that  an  edition  of  my  "  Univer- 
sal and  Critical  Dictionary  of  the  English  Language,"  with 
a  false  title  and  a  garbled  and  mutilated  preface^  has  been 
published  in  London,  has  recently  come  to  my  knowl- 
edge ;  and  I  have  had  some  correspondence  on  the  subject 
with  Mr.  Wilkins,  of  the  late  firm  of  Wilkins,  Carter, 
&  Co.,  the  original  publishers  of  the  Dictionary.  As  you 
are  now  the  publishers  of  it,  I  send  this  correspondence 
to  you,  together  with  a  correction  of  some  false  state- 
ments relating  to  myself,  which  the  publishers  of  Dr. 
Webster's  Dictionary  have  made  and  circulated  very 
widely,  with  a  request  that  you  will  get  these  matters 
printed  and  put  in  circulation,  in  order  that  this  literary 
fraud  may  be  exposed.  I  am  sorry  to  have  occasion  to 
make  such  a  request;  but  it  seems  proper  that  some- 
thing should  be  done;  and  it  is  my  wish  that  such  a 
course  may  be  adopted  as  may  tend  to  set  matters  right, 
as  far  as  the  case  admits. 

I  do  not  wish  any  thing  ever  to  be  said  or  done,  in  order 
to  promote  the  circulation  of  my  literary  publications, 
that  is  not  in  strict  accordance  with  truth  and  propriety, 
or  that  can  give  reasonable  offence  to  any  one.  The 
world  is  wide  enough,  and  the  demand  for  useful  books 
sufiicient,  to  give  employment  to  all  literary  laborers,  who 
make  use  of  proper  means  for  preparing  books  which  .will 
promote  the  improvement  of  society ;  and  I  see  no  good 
reason  for  hpstile  contention  between  those  who  make 
such  books,  or  between  those  who  sell  them. 
Respectfully  yours, 
*         '  J.  E.  Worcester. 


y:^c 


LITERARY  FRAUD  EXPOSED. 


Cambridge,  Angost  24,  1853. 

John  H.  Wilkins,  Esq.:  — 

Dear  Sir,  —  Not  long  since  I  saw,  in  an  English 
journal,  an  advertisement  of  a  Dictionary  published  in 
.  London,  in  the  title  of  which  my  name  was  connected 
with  that  of  Dr.  Noah  Webster,  in  a  way  that  I  did  not 
understand,  and  could  not  account  for ;  and  in  the  Boston 
Daily  Advertiser,  of  the  5th  instant,  there  is  a  communica- 
tion with  the  signature  of  G.  &  C.  Merriam,  the  publishers 
of  Webster's  Dictionary,  from  which  the  following  para- 
graphs are  extracted :  — 

"  Mr.  Worcester  having  been  employed  by  Dr.  Webster 
or  his  family,  to  abridge  the  American  Dictionary  of  the 
English  Language,  some  years  afterwards,  and  subse- 
quently to  Dr.  Webster's  death,  in  presenting  to  the  pub- 
lic a  Dictionary  of  his  own,  of  the  same  size  as  the 
Abridgment  prepared  by  him  of  Webster,  says  in  his 
Preface,  that  he  *  is  not  aware  of  having  taken  a  single 
word,  or  the  definition  of  a  word '  from  Webster  in  the 
preparation  of  his  work. 

"  Now  mark  this  fact.  An  edition  of  Worcester's  Dic- 
tionary has  recently  been  published  in  London,  and  sought 
to  be  pushed  there,  in  which  the  paragraph  we  have  cited 
is  carefully  suppressed,  and  is  advertised  as  *  Webster's 
Critical  and  Pronouncing  Dictionary,  &c.,  enlarged  and 
revised  by  Worcester.'  On  the  title-page  Webster  is 
1* 


6 

pljaced  first,  in.  large  type,  and  Worcester  follows  in  an- 
othei'  line  in  srti^lter  type ;  and  the  book  is  lettered  on  the 
bacit:  *•  ^^S^eb'stier's  an.d  Worcester's  Dictionary ' ! " 

Now  this  was  new  and  surprising  to  me ;  for  I  did  not 
know  that  my  Dictionary  had  been  published  in  London. 
Since  seeing  this  statement,  I  have  called  three  or  four 
times  at  your  office  in  Boston  to  make  inquiry  of  you 
respecting  the  matter ;  but  did  not  find  you  in  till  yester- 
day. I  had,  however,  seen  Mr.  Rice,  who  was  lately  con- 
nected with  you  in  business,  and  he  told  me  that  the 
Dictionary  had  been  published  in  London,  and  that  he 
believed  you  had  a  copy  of  the  London  edition.  On 
seeing  you  yesterday,  you  said  that  you  had  a  copy,  and 
that  you  would  send  it  to  me.  I  have  this  morning  re- 
ceived it ;  and  I  am  astonished  to  find  that  the  title  is  as 
follows :  — 

"  A  Universal^  Critical^  and  Pronouncing  Dictionary  of 
the  English  Language:  including  Scientific  Terms,  com' 
piled  from  the  materials  of  Noah  Webster,  LL.  D.  By 
Joseph  E.  Worcester.  —  JVew  Edition,  to  which  are  added 
WaUcer^s  Key  to  the  Pronunciation  of  Classical  and 
Scripture  Proper  Names,  enlarged  and  improved;  a  Pro- 
nouncing Vocabulary  of  Modern  Geographical  Names; 
and  an  English  Grammar.  London:  Henry  G.  Bohn, 
4,  5,  and  6  York  Street,  Covent  Garden." 

The  true  title  of  my  Dictionary  is  as  follows :  — 

"  A  Universal  and  Critical  Dictionary  of  the  English 
Language:  to  which  are  added  Walker's  Key  to  the 
Pronunciation  of  Classical  and  Scripture  Proper  Names, 
much  enlarged  and  improved;  and  a  Pronouncing  Vocab- 
ulary of  Modern  Geographical  Names.  By  Joseph  E. 
Worcester." 

I  find  that  the  Preface  is  garbled  and  much  altered; 
and  several  omissions  are  *made.  One  of  the  matters 
omitted  in  it  is  the  following  statement,  viz. :  — "  With 
respect  to  Webster^ s  Dictionary,  which  the  compiler  several 


•• 


years  since  abridged^  he  is  not  aware  of  having"  taken  a 
single  wordj  or  the  definition  of  a  word^from  that  work  in 
the  preparation  of  this." 

I  do  not  know  that  the  truth  of  this  statement  has  ever 
been  explicitly  denied,  and  I  do  know  that  it  has  never 
been  disproved.  You  will  see  how  inconsistent  —  how 
false  and  injurious  —  is  the  statement  in  the  Title  of  the 
London  edition,  —  "  compiled  from  the  materials  of  Noah 
Webster" I  The  person  who  remodelled  the  Title  and 
Preface  of  the  London  edition,  must  have  known  that  he 
was  contradicting  the  statement  which  I  made  in  my 
Preface;  and  the  publishers  of  Webster's  Dictionary  are 
endeavoring  to  make  use  of  this  dishonest  proceeding 
of  the  London  publisher  to  my  injury,  and  in  such  a 
manner  as  no  honorable  or  honest  men  would  do,  if  they 
knew  the  facts  in  the  case. 

I  would  now  ask,  what  is  to  be  done  in  this  matter  ? 
You  will  not  suppose  that  I  ought  to  feel  satisfied  to  have 
it  remain  uncontradicted ;  yet  I  am  very  averse  to  appear 
before  the  public  in  any  controversy  relating  to  a  publica- 
tion of  my  own.  You  are  aware,  as  well  as  other  per- 
sons who  have  been  concerned  in  publishing  works  which 
I  have  prepared  for  the  press,  that  my  habit  has  been  to 
leave  my  books  to  the  management  of  the  publishers, 
without  defending  them  from  any  attack,  or  doing  any 
thing  to  injure  any  works  that  may  come  in  competi- 
tion with  them ;  nor  do  I  wish  ever  to  deviate  from  this 
course. 

As  I  have  no  pecuniary  interest  in  the  London  edition  of 
the  Dictionary,  I  think  I  am  entitled  to  be  protected  from 
being  injured  by  it  in  this  manner ;  and  as  you  have  made 
the  contract,  if  there  has  been  one  made,  with  the  London 
publisher,  I  must  call  your  attention  to  the  subject ;  and 
I  do  sa  in  full  confidence  that  you  will  wish  to  have  the 
matter  set  right,  and  have  no  wrong  done  to  any  one. 
Truly  yours, 

J.  E.  Worcester. 


Boston,  August  31,  1853. 

Mr.  Worcester  :  — 

Dear  Sir, —  Your  favor  of  the  24th  instant  came  duly 
to  hand,  but  I  have  not  had  leisure  until  now  to  an- 
swer it. 

Early  in  1847,  Mr.  James  Brown,  of  the  firm  of  Little, 
Brown,  &  Co.  of  this  city,  was  about  to  visit  Europe ; 
and'we  (Wilkins,  Carter,  &  Co.)  authorized  him  to  nego- 
tiate for  the  publication  of  your  Dictionary  in  England  if 
he  had  opportunity,  and  particularly  with  Mr.  Bohn,  from 
whom  we  had  received  an  application  for  the  privilege. 
Subsequently  Mr.  Brown  informed  us  of  an  offer  he  had 
received  from  Mr.  Bohn,  and  furnished  us  with  the  letter 
from  Mr.  Bohn  to  him;  to  the  proposals  in  which  we 
acceded,  and  in  October  of  that  year  shipped  the  plates 
to  London. 

I  remember  perfectly  well  that  we  felt  some  doubt 
in  regard  to  the  validity  of  a  contract  made  on  paper 
not  bearing  a  stamp;  but  we  supposed  Mr.  Bohn  was 
an  honorable  man,  and  would  not  repudiate  it. 

After  shipping  the  plates  we  heard  nothing  from  Mr. 
Bohn  until  the  next  year,  when  we  became  somewhat 
impatient  of  the  delay,  and  we  wrote  him  urging  him  to 
go  on  in  fulfilment  of  his  agreement.  "We  received  an 
answer  stating  that  he  was  sorry  the  plates  had  been  sent. 
And  we  learned  that  he  had  become  interested  in  the 
sale  of  Webster's  Dictionary.  Several  letters  passed  be- 
tween him  and  us,  but  we  were  unable  to  induce  him  to 
fulfil  his  agreement. 

In  the  autumn  of  1849,  more  than  two  years  after  the 
plates  were  sent,  Mr.  Carter  went  to  Europe  for  his  health, 
—  intending  to  see  Mr.  Bohn  and  come  to  some  arrange- 
ment with  him.  But  his  health  did  not  allow  of  this.  In 
the  summer  or  autumn  of  1850,  Mr.  Bohn  wrote  us  asking 
our  lowest  terms  to  sell  the  plates,  which  I  named, — 
never  dreaming  that  any  other  use  would  be  made  of 
them  than  that  of  publishing  your  Dictionary  under  your 


9 

name.     He  accepted  my  offer,  and  the  transfer  of  the 
plates  was  effected. 

On  Mr.  Carter's  return  from  Italy,  in  the  summer  of 
1851,  he  brought  home  a  copy  of  his  (Mr.  Bohn's)  bare- 
faced publication.  You  can  judge  of  our  surprise,  I  might 
say  amazement,  at  the  audacity  of  this  literary  fraud. 
We  felt  very  uncomfortable  about  it,  but  did  not  see 
that  any  thing  could  be  done  to  remedy  the  evil.  Mr. 
Carter  was  never  afterwards  able  to  attend  to  business, 
and  the  subject  of  this  publication  was  never  further  con- 
sidered between  us. 

You  may  well  think  it  strange  that  I  did  not  at  the 
time  call  your  attention  to  the  subject  of  this  literary 
imposition ;  but  as  I  did  not  see  any  means  of  remedying 
the  evil,  and  knowing  that  the  condition  of  your  eyes  was 
such  that  you  could  make  but  little  if  any  use  of  them,  I 
did  not  feel  in  haste  to  trouble  you  with  a  knowledge  of 
it.  I  have,  however,  never  seen  any  notice  of  this  spuri- 
ous publication  in  this  country,  until  you  called  my  at- 
tention to  one.  Had  any  such  notice  met  my  eye,  I  should 
certainly  have  deemed  it  my  duty  to  call  your  attention 
to  the  volume  brought  home  by  Mr.  Carter. 

Had  I  leisure  to  narrate  the  details  of  our  business 
transaction  with  Mr.  Bohn,  I  think  it  would  appear  to 
be,  on  his  part,  as  commercially  dishonorable,  as  this  liter- 
ary enterprise  is  fraudulent  and  disgraceful. 
Your  obedient  servant, 

John  H.  Wilkins. 

In  my  letter  to  Mr.  Wilkins,  I  say,  in  relation  to  the 
statement  that  "  I  am  not  aware  of  having  taken  a  single 
word,  or  the  definition  of  a  word,  from  Dr.  Webster's  Dic- 
tionary, in  the  preparation  of  mine,"  that  "  I  do  not  know 
that  the  truth  of  this  statement  had  ever  been  explicitly 
denied."  But  the  title  of  the  London  edition  states  that 
my  Dictionary  was  "  compiled  from  the  materials  of  Noah 
Webster  " !  —  and  the  publishers  of  Webster's  Dictionary 


10 

seem  to  insinuate  very  strongly,  in  the  paragraphs  which 
I  have  quoted,  as  they  have  sdso  done  on  other  occasions, 
that  the  statement  is  not  correct.  But  if  there  is  a  word 
or  the  definition  of  a  word  that  was,  in  the  preparation 
of  my  Dictionary,  taken  from  that  of  Dr.  Webster,  I  am 
ignorant  of  the  fact.  Having  had  some  knowledge  of  Dr. 
Webster's  readiness  to  complain  of  improper  use  being 
made  of  his  work,*  I  resolved  that,  in  preparing  my  Diction- 
ary,  I  would  forego  all  the  benefit  which  might  be  derived 
from  the  use  of  the  materials  found  in  his  work,  so  that 
I  might  not  give  the  least  occasion  for  an  accusation  of 
the  kind,  and  might  be  enabled  to  make  the  statement  ivhich 
I  did  make,  and  which  I  challenge  any  one  to  disprove. 


Having  felt  it  incumbent  on  me  to  expose  the  dis- 
honest proceedings  of  the  London  publisher,  it  may  not 
be  improper  for  me  to  notice  some  other  false  statements, 
designed  to  injure  me,  which  the  publishers  of  Webster's 
Dictionary  have  repeatedly  made  and  widely  circulated. 
As  these  statements  have  not  been  publicly  contradicted, 
they  have  doubtless  done  me  injury  in  the  minds  of  many. 

The  quotation  above  made  from  their  communication 
to  the  Boston  Daily  Advertiser  begins  thus :  — "  Mr. 
Worcester  having  been  employed  by  Dr.  Webster  or 
his  family  to  abridge  the  American  Dictionary  of  the 
English  Language  " ;  —  and  in  their  Advertising  Pamphlet 
they  say,  "  Mr.  Worcester  was  employed  by  Dr.  Webster 
or  his  family  to  prepare  an  Abridgment  of  the  American 
Dictionary,"  —  accompanying  the  statement  with  injurious 
reflections.  As  this  statement  has  been  so  often  made 
in  a  form  designed  to  do  me  injury,  and  as  it  is  doubtless 
true  that  many  persons  may  have  been  made  to  believe 
that  there  was  something  t^ong  or  dishonorable  on  my 
part,  I  think  it  proper  that  the  public  should  have  the 
means  of  knowing  the  facts  in  the  case. 

*  See  Appendix. 


11 

The  statement  that  I  "  was  employed  by  Dr.  Webster 
or  his  family  to  abridge  the  American  Dictionary,"  is 
void  of  truth.  The  gentleman  who  employed  me  was 
Sherman  Converse,  Esq.,  the  original  publisher  of  Dr. 
Webster's  Dictionary.  So  far  was  the  task  from  being 
one  of  my  own  seeking,  that  I  declined  two  applications 
that  were  made  to  me  to  undertake  it,  and  one  reason  was 
the  fear  that  it  would  bring  me  into  some  difficulty  or  em- 
barrassment in  relation  to  the  "  Comprehensive  Diction- 
ary," which  I  was  then  preparing ;  but  the  matter  was  urged 
upon  me  by  Mr.  Converse,  after  I  had  stated  my  objec- 
tions. If  any  one  shall  say  that  I  committed  an  error  in 
judgment  in  finally  consenting  to  make  the  abridgment,  I 
shall  certainly,  on  that  point,  not  conteAd  with  him,  for 
it  has  been  to  me  a  matter  of  much  regret  that  I  did  so, 
as  may  readily  be  believed  from  what  has  taken  place. 
But  I  am  conscious  of  having  acted  in  good  faith  in  the 
matter,  and  of  not  having  deserved  ill  treatment  from  Dr. 
Webster  or  his  friends. 

After  seeing  the  publication  above  referred  to  in  the 
Daily  Advertiser,  I  sent  a  copy  of  it  to  Mr.  Converse, 
(whom  I  had  seen  but  once,  I  believe,  for  more  than  fifteen 
years,)  accompanying  it  with  a  letter,  in  which  I  requested 
him  to  give  a  brief  statement  of  the  facts  in  the  case ;  and 
1  received  from  him  the  following  letter :  — 

Newburgh,  N.  Y.,  August  31, 1853. 

Mr.  Worcester:  — 

Dear  Sir,  —  Having  been  absent  from  New  York  for 
several  weeks,  I  have  but  just  received  your  favor  of  the 
12th  instant,  with  a  copy  of  the  Boston  Daily  Advertiser 
accompanying  it.  I  have  read  the  article  in  the  Adver- 
tiser, in  which  your  name  is  coupled  with  that  of  the 
octavo  abridgment  of  Mr.  Webster's  larger  work.  Authors 
are  sometimes  sensitive,  but  really  I  do  not  think  you 
have  much  occasion  for  anxiety  in  regard  to  your  repu- 
tation, either  personal  or  literary.     But  since  you  ask  me 


12 


to  say  whether  I  "know  of  any  thing  wrong  or  dis- 
honorable on  your  part  in  relation  to  that  Abridgment," 
I  answer,  Nothing-  whatever. 

The  simple  history  of  the  whole  matter  is  this.  I  had 
published  Mr.  Webster's  great  Dictionary,  and  presented 
it  to  the  public.  The  labor  had  cost  from  two  to  three 
years  of  the  best  portion  of  my  business  life,  without  any 
adequate  remuneration.  For  this  I  looked  to  an  Abridg- 
ment, and  such  future  editions  of  the  larger  work  as  the 
demand  might  authorize.  But  if  I  published  an  Abridg- 
ment, I  wished  to  stereotype  it,  and,  as  a  business  man, 
I  desired  it  to  be  made  by  an  able  hand,  and  with  some 
variations,  of  minor  importance,  from  the  original.  On 
conferring  with  Mr.  Webster  upon  the  subject,  he  stated 
two  objections  to  my  views.  He  felt  that  he  had  not  the 
physical  power  left  to  perform  the  labor  in  a  reasonable 
time,  and  that  he  could  not  preserve  his  literary  consist- 
ency and  be  responsible  for  the  variations  which  I  de- 
sired. Yet,  as  I  had  published  the  great  work  after  it  had 
been  declined,  and  that  not  very  graciously,  by  all  the 
principal  booksellers  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  he  was 
willing  that  I  should  derive  any  remuneration  I  might  an- 
ticipate from  an  octavo  abridgment.  With  these  views 
and  feelings,  he  consented  to  commit  the  subject  to  the 
mutual  discretion  of  Professor  Goodrich  and  myself; 
setting  a  limit,  however,  beyond  which  variations  should 
not  be  made ;  and  that  he  might  not  incur  the  least  re- 
sponsibility for  such  variations  as  the  abridgment  might 
contain,  I  understood  him  to  say,  he  should  give  the  copy- 
right to  another. 

As  soon  as  Mr.  Webster  had  made  his  decision,  which 
was  probably  a  sacrifice  of  feeling  on  his  part  to  do  me 
a  favor,  I  applied  to  you  to  undertake  the  labor.  You  de- 
clined, and  so  decidedly  that  I  made  a  visit  to  Cambridge 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  urging  your  compliance  with  my 
request.  You  assured  me  that  you  could  not  undertake 
to  abridge   Mr.  Webster's  Dictionary,  for  the  very  good 


13 

reason  that  you  had  then  abready  made  considerable  prog- 
ress in  preparing  a  Dictionary  of  your  own.  At  the 
same  time,  you  showed  me  a  Synopsis  of  words  of  dis- 
puted pronunciation,  with  the  respective  authorities.  But 
the  result  of  our  interview  was  an  agreement  on  your  part 
to  abridge  the  Dictionary  for  me,  and  to  allow  me  to  use 
your  Synopsis,  with  the  express  reservation  of  the  right  to 
use  it  as  your  own,  for  your  own  Dictionary.  And  I  must 
say  that  my  persuasive  powers  were  very  severely  taxed 
in  securing  the  desired  result. 

I  returned  to  New  Haven,  and  subsequently  called  on 
you  in  company  with  Mr.  Goodrich,  when  the  matter  of 
variations  was  settled,  and  you  entered  upon  the  labor; 
and  I  am  free  to  say  you  performed  it  to  my  entire  satis- 
faction, and  I  believe  to  that  of  Professor  Goodrich  also, 
for  I  never  heard  an  intimation  to  the  contrary. 
I  am  very  faithfully  yours, 

S.  Converse. 

It  may  not  perhaps  be  improper  for  me  to  give  brief 
extracts  from  letters  which  I  received  from  Dr.  Webster 
and  Professor  Goodrich,  vety  soon  after  they  had  been  in- 
formed that  I  "had  consented  to  undertake  the  abridg- 
ment." 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  letter  of  Dr.  Webster 
to  me,  dated  New  Haven,  July  27,  1828 :  — 

«  Sir,  —  Mr.  Converse  has  engaged  you  to  abridge  my 
Dictionary,  and  has  requested  me  to  forward  you  the 
copy  of  the  first  volume.  This  was  unexpected  to  me; 
but  under  the  circumstances,  I  have  consented  to  it,  and 
shall  send  the  copy." 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  letter  of  Professor 
Goodrich  to  me,  dated  Yale  CoUege,  July  28, 1828:  — 

"  My  dear  Sir,  —  Mr.  Converse,  who  was  here  on  Satur- 
day, informed  us  that  you  had  consented  to  undertake  the 
abridgment  of  Mr.  Webster's  Dictionary.     This  gives  me 
2 


14 

and  Mr.  Webster's  other  friends  the  highest  satisfaction ; 
for  there  is  no  man  in  the  United  States,  as  you  know 
from  conversation  with  me,  who  would  be  equally  ac- 
ceptable."   

The  publishers  of  Webster's  Dictionary,  in  order  to 
make  it  appear  that  I  have  been  inconsistent  with  myself 
in  relation  to  orthography,  say :  "  In  1827,  an  edition  of 
Todd's  Johnson's  Dictionary,  1  vol.  8vo,  was  published  in 
Boston,  of  which  Mr.  Worcester  was  the  American  editor. 
Having  the  entire  control  of  the  matter,  he  retained  the  k 
in  words  terminating  in  c,  as  musick,  physick,  almanack, 
&c.,  and  the  u  in  honour,  favour,  authour,  and  that  large 
class  of  words."  And  they  say  further,  in  relation  to 
orthography :  "  Worcester,  not  guided  by  any  system  or 
principles  of  his  own,  but  seeking  to  fall  in  with  the  con- 
stantly changing  practice  of  the  hour,"  &c. 

"Johnson's  English  Dictionary,  as  improved  by  Todd 
and  abridged  by  Chalmers,  with  Walker's  Pronouncing 
Dictionary  combined,"  first  published  in  Boston  in  1827, 
was  edited  by  me  on  principles  fixed  upon  by  the  publish- 
ers and  some  literary  gentlemen,  who  were  their  coun- 
sellors in  the  matter ;  and  of  these  counsellors,  the  one  who 
did  the  most  in  the  business  was  the  late  learned  and 
much  respected  Mr.  John  Pickering.  It  was  made  my 
duty  to  conform  to  the  principles  established  for  my  guid- 
ance; and  I  had  no  ^^  control  of  the  matter. ^^  The  Diction- 
ary was  to  contain  Johnson's  orthography,  and  Walker'^s 
pronunciation.  I  was  so  far  from  defending  the  use  of  the 
final  k  in  music,  physic,  &c.,  that  I  said  in  relation  to  it,  in 
my  Preface  to  that  Dictionary :  "  The  general  usage,  both 
in  England  and  America,  is  at  present  so  strongly  in  favor 
of  its  omission,  that  the  retaining  of  it  seems  now  to 
savor  of  affectation  or  singuTarity." 

As  the  orthography  of  this  Dictionary  was  that  of  John- 
son, so  th^  orthography  of  the  Abridgment  of  Webster's 
Dictionary  made  by  me,  was  that  of  Webster,  with  some 


variations  which  were  decided  upon  by  "his  representa- 
tive," and  over  which  I  had  no  control.  The  only  orthog- 
raphy for  which  I  am  responsible  is  that  found  in  my 
own  Dictionaries. 

These  publishers  further  charge  me  with  "adopting 
several  of  Dr.  Webster's  peculiarities,  omitting  the  k  and 
w,"  &c.  I  am  not  aware  of  having  adopted  any  of  Dr. 
Webster's  "peculiarities"  relating  either  to  orthography 
or  pronunciation;  and  if  any  such  can  be  found  in  my 
Dictionary,  I  should  certainly  not  regard  them  as  adding 
to  the  value  of  the  work. 

With  respect  to  the  omission  of  k  in  music,  public,  &c., 
it  may  be  stated,  in  addition  to  what  is  said  above,  that  it 
was  omitted  in  that  class  of  words  in  Martin's  English 
Dictionary,  published  in  1749,  before  that  of  Johnson ;  and 
it  has  been  omitted  in  many  other  Dictionaries  published 
since ;  and  the  omission  of  u  in  honor,  favor,  &c.  was 
countenanced  in  the  Dictionaries  of  Ash  and  Entick,  pub- 
lished long  before  that  of  Dr.  Webster.  The  fact  that  this 
orthography  was  the  prevailing  usage  with  the  best  authors 
in  this  country  was  a  good  reason  for  adopting  it. 

There  are  other  falsehoods  relating  to  me,  contained  in 
the  Advertising  Pamphlet  of  these  publishers,  which  I  pass 
by  without  particular  notice. 


With  respect  to  the  manner  in  which  my  Dictionary 
has  generally  been  noticed  in  Reviews  and  Literary  Jour- 
nals, so  far  as  I  have  seen  such  notices,  I  have  reason  to 
be  entirely  satisfied.  There  is,  however,  an  article  upon  it 
in  the  American  Review,  published  in  New  York,  (written, 
as  I  have  been  informed,  by  a  Professor  at  New  Haven,  at 
the  time  when  the  new  edition  of  Dr.  Webster's  Diction- 
ary was  preparing  at  that  place,  and  who  assisted  the 
Editor  in  preparing  that  edition,)  which  is  in  remarkable 
contrast  to  any  other  review  of  the  work  that  I  have  seen. 
The  reputed  author  of  this  article  has  been  employed  by 
the  publishers  of  Dr.  Webster's  Dictionary  as  a  public 


16 

advocate  of  that  work;  and  his  notice  of  mine  is  so 
much  to  their  purpose,  that  they  have  seen  fit  to  insert 
a  great  part  of  it  in  their  Advertising  Pamphlet.  Con- 
sidering the  circumstances  under  which  this  article  was 
written,  and  the  manifest  object  of  it,  such  of  the  alleged 
imperfections  in  the  Dictionary  as  are  founded  in  truth, 
are  not  greater  or  more  numerous  than  might  reasonably 
be  expected. 

As  a  specimen  of  the  candor  and  truthfulness  of  the 
writer  of  this  review,  I  quote  a  part  of  what  he  says  in 
relation  to  what  the  author  of  the  Dictionary  has  done 
with  respect  to  words  differently  pronounced  by  different 
orthoepists :  — "  He  has,"  says  the  reviewer,  "  collected 
and  attached  to  every  important  word,  every  method  of 
pronouncing  it  that  has  ever  been  recommended  by  a 
writer,  whether  great  or  small,  conceited  or  well-informed, 
judicious  or  affected." 

Now  the  following  is  the  true  statement  of  what  is  done, 
in  the  Dictionary,  in  relation  to  words  differently  pro- 
nounced by  different  orthoepists,  as  may  be  seen  on  page 
xxiv. :  — "  The  English  authorities  most  frequently  cited 
in  this  volume  are  Sheridan,  Walker,  Perry,  Jones,  Enfield, 
Fulton  and  Knight,  Jameson,  Knowles,  Smart,  and  E-eid, 
all  of  whom  are  authors  of  Pronouncing  Dictionaries.  In 
addition  to  these,  various  other  English  lexicographers 
and  orthoepists  are  frequently  brought  forward,  as  Bailey, 
Johnson,  Kenrick,  Ash,  Dyche,  Barclay,  Entick,  Scott, 
Nares,  Maunder,  Crabb,  and  several  others;  besides  the 
distinguished  American  lexicographer.  Dr.  Webster." 


There  has  been,  as  I  have  understood,  considerable 
controversy  relating  to  the  Dictionaries  in  the  newspapers 
and  literary  journals,  particularly  in  the  city  of  New  York ; 
but  it  took  place  when  I  had  little  use  of  my  eyesight,  and 
I  have  seen  little  of  it.  While  my  Dictionary  was  passing 
through  the  press,  one  of  my  eyes  became  blind  by  a  cata- 


17 

ract,  and  not  a  great  while  after,  the  sight  of  the  other 
eye  was  lost  in  the  same  way ;  and  though  my  eyesight 
has  been  in  some  measure  restored,  yet  for  a  great  portion 
of  the  time  since  its  failure,  I  have  been  able  to  do  little 
or  nothing  as  a  student;  so  that  it  has  been  impossible 
for  me  to  make  such  a  revision  of  my  different  publica- 
tions, as  I  might  otherwise  have  done. 

The  manner  in  which  my  literary  productions  have 
generally  been  noticed  by  the  press  and  patronized  by  the 
public,  calls  for  the  expression  of  gratitude  much  more 
than  for  complaint.  It  is  with  great  reluctance  that  I 
have  been  induced  to  appear  before  the  public  in  a 
manner  that  may  savor  so  much  of  egotism;  but  the 
base  conduct  of  the  London  publisher  especially  seemed 
to  render  it  necessary  that  something  should  be  done; 
and  1  trust  that  nothing  which  has  here  been  said  in  my 
defence  will  be  found  inconsistent  with  truth  or  propriety. 
I  have  acted  wholly  on  the  defensive,  and  I  have  no  dis- 
position "to  dip  my  pen  in  gall,"  or  to  make  a  hostile 
attack  on  any  one,  or  to  speak  disparagingly  of  any  pub- 
lication that  may  come  in  competition  with  mine.  I 
have  not,  so  far  as  I  know,  ever  seen  or  ever  injured 
any  one  of  the  persons  on  whose  course  I  have  made 
strictures.  Whether  their  consciences  are  at  ease  in  this 
matter  or  not,  is  a  question  that  concerns  themselves 
more  than  it  does  me.  For  myself,  I  would  rather  be 
the  subject  than  the  perpetrator  of  such  falsehood  and 

wrong. 

J.  E.  WORCESTER. 


1\ 


APPENDIX. 


As  the  question  respecting  the  use  made  of  "  the  materials  of  Dr. 
Webster  "  has  become  one  of  so  much  importance,  I  have  thought, 
on  further  reflection,  that  it  is  proper  the  public  should  have  the 
means  of  better  understanding  the  reasons  which  induced  me  to  take 
the  course  which  I  did,  in  preparing  my  "  Universal  and  Critical 
Dictionary."  My  course,  which  was  known  to  some  of  my  literary 
friends,  was  objected  to ;  for  I  was  told  that,  by  totally  abstaining 
from  such  use  of  Dr.  Webster's  Dictionary,  I  deprived  myself  of  ad- 
vantages for  improving  my  own,  which  I  might,  to  some  extent, 
without  impropriety,  avail  myself  of ;  but  I  was  sure,  from  what  had 
already  taken  place,  that  I  could  not  make  such  use,  to  a  degree 
that  would  be  of  any  benefit  to  me,  without  subjecting  myself  to 
such  reproach  as  would  be  very  unpleasant.  I  therefore  merely 
cited  Dr.  Webster's  authority  in  relation  to  words  differently  pro- 
nounced by  different  orthoepists. 

The  necessity,  in  order  to  avoid  reproach,  of  my  taking  the 
course  I  did  in  relation  to  the  Universal  Dictionary,  must  be  sufli- 
ciently  obvious  to  all  who  know  what  took  place  with  respect  to  my 
previous  work,  entitled  the  Comprehensive  Dictionary,  which  was 
first  published  in  1830.  In  November,  1834,  there  appeared  in  the 
"Worcester  Palladium,"  (a  newspaper  published  at  Worcester, 
Mass.,)  at  the  instigation,  as  I  was  informed,  of  an  agent  for  Dr. 
Webster's  Dictionaries,  an  attack  upon  me,  in  which  the  following 
language  was  used  :  — "  ^  gross  plagiarism  has  been  committed  hy 
Mr.  J.  E.  Worcester  on  the  literary  property  of  Noah  Webster, 

Esq Mr.  Worcester,  after  having  become  acquainted  with  Mr. 

Webster^s  plan,  immediately  set  about  appropriating  to  his  own 
benefit  the  valuable  labors,   acquisitions,   and  productions  of  Mr. 

Webster If  we  had  a  statute  which  could  fix  its  grasp  on  those 

who  pilfer  the  products  of  mind,  as  readily  as  our  laws  embrace  the 
common  thief,  Mr.  Worcester  would  hardly  escape  with  a  light  mulct.^^ 

At  this  time  the  "  Christian  Register,"  published  in  Boston,  was 


19 

edited  by  Professor  Sidney  Willard,  who  happened  to  be  as  well  ac- 
quainted with  my  lexicographical  labors  and  the  circumstances  re- 
lating to  them,  as  almost  any  gentleman  in  the  community ;  and  he 
answered  this  (as  he  styled  it)  "  ferocious  assault,"  in  such  a  manner 
as  he  thought  proper,  before  I  had  any  knowledge  that  such  an  as- 
sault had  been  made.  In  order  to  sustain  his  accusation,  the  editor 
of  the  Palladium  enumerated  twenty-one  words,  which  he  said  "  are 
found  in  none  of  the  English  Dictionaries  in  common  use,  and  were 
undoubtedly  taken  from  Webster's."  I  thought  proper  to  send  to 
the  editor  an  answer  to  his  attack.  In  a  succeeding  number  of  the 
Palladium,  there  appeared  a  short  letter  to  the  editor  from  Dr.  Web- 
ster, dated  New  Haven,  December  11th,  1834,  in  which  he  said, 
'*  That  he  [Worcester]  borrowed  some  words  and  definitions,  I  sup- 
pose to  be  proved  by  the  fact  that  they  are  found  in  no  British  Dic- 
tionary ;  at  least  in  none  that  I  have  seen."  Subsequently  there 
appeared,  in  the  Palladium,  a  letter  from  Dr.  Webster,  addressed  to 
me,  dated  January  25th,  1835.  This  was  followed  by  an  answer 
from  me,  dated  February  6th.  Two  more  letters  from  Dr.  Webster 
followed,  together  with  my  ans^vers.  The  editor  of  the  Christian 
Register  transferred  the  whole  correspondence  into  his  paper. 

By  perusing  all  that  appeared  in  these  two  newspapers,  the  Palla- 
dium and  the  Register,  the  reader  would  have  the  means  of  judging 
of  the  merits  of  the  case,  and  would  be  able  to  understand  something 
of  the  circumstances  and  reasons  which  induced  me  to  take  the 
course  of  abstaining  entirely  from  the  use  of  the  materials  found  in 
Dr.  Webster's  Dictionary.  But  as  it  might  tax  the  patience  of  the 
reader  too  much  to  place  before  him  all  this  matter  (which  may  be 
seen  by  examining  the  files  of  those  newspapers),  I  will  now  insert 
Dr.  Webster's  first  letter  to  me,  dated  January  25,  together  with  my 
answer.  This  letter  contains  Dr.  Webster's  chief  specifications 
against  me,  —  a  list  of  121  words,  "  which,"  he  said,  *'^  prima  facie, 
would  seem  to  be  taken  from  his  Dictionary."  In  his  subsequent 
letters,  he  did  not  specify  any  more  words  as  borrowed  from  him ; 
and  the  only  word  specified,  with  respect  to  which  he  accused  me  of 
"  adding  his  definitions,''^  was  the  word  clapboard ;  and  in  that,  1 
may  say,  he  succeeded  no  better  in  his  evidence,  than  with  respect 
to  the  charge  of  borrowing  the  121  words.  The  reader  will  please 
to  compare  the  specifications  and  the  evidence  with  the  charges 
against  me,  quoted  from  the  Worcester  Palladium,  and  characterize 
the  whole  transaction  as  he  may  see  fit. 


20 


MR.    WEBSTER'S    LETTER 
From  tlie  Worcester  Palladium. 


New  Haven,  January  25, 1836. 


Mr.  J.  E.  Worcester  :  — 


Sir,  —  Before  I  saw,  in  the  Worcester  Palladium,  a  charge 
against  you  of  committing  plagiarism  on  my  Dictionary,  I  had  not 
given  much  attention  to  your  Dictionary.  Nor  have  I  now  read  and 
compared  with  mine  one  tenth  part  of  the  work.  But  in  running 
over  it,  in  a  cureory  manner,  I  have  collected  the  following  words, 
which,  prima  facie,  would  seem  to  have  been  taken  from  my  Dic- 
tionary :  — 


Abatable 

Hydrant 

Olivaceous 

Assignor 

Irredeemable 

Ophiologist 

Augean 

Instanter 

Ophiology 

Bateau 

Isothermal 

Philosophism 

Cartrut 

Johannes 

Phosphoresce 

Caucus 

Judiciary  (noun) 

Phosphorescence 

Chowder 

Kumiss 

Phosphorescent 

Congregationalist 

Land-office 

Prayerful 

Congressional 

Lapstone 

Prayerless 

Clapboard 

Landslip 

Promisee 

Dell 

Leach 

Pappoose 

Dutiable 

Leachtub 

Pistareen 

Deliquesce 

Magnetize 

Pledgee 

Digraph 

Mazology 

Postfix 

Emphasize 

Mishna 

Postnote 

Effloresce 

Moccason 

Raca 

Educational 

Monitorial 

Ramadan 

Effervescent 

Muscovado 

Razee 

Electioneer 

Muskrat,  or 

Redemptioner 

Farrow 

Musquash 

Rhabdology 

Fructescence 

Notarial 

Rock-crystal 

Fracas 

Neap  (of  a  cart,  ^c.) 

Roil,  roily 

Glazing 

Neptunian  * 

Repealable 

Governmental 

Outlay 

Safety-valve 

Grandjury 

Obsidian 

Semiannual 

Graphite 

Obstetrics 

Sectional 

Griddle 

Ochlocracy 

Sabianism 

2fi 


Saltrheum  Succotash  Tuffoon 

Savings-bank  Selectman  Uranology 

Scorify  Sparse  Varioloid 

Scow  Sou  Vapor-bath 

Sheepshead  Souvenir  Vermivorous 

Spry  Suffix,  n.  (J*  v.  Vishna 

Squirm  Tirade  Voltaism 

Spinning-jenny  Tenderloin  Volcanist 

Spinning-wheel  Teraphim  Waffle 

Seraskier  Test,  v.  Whiflletree 

Siderography  Thammuz  Wilt 

Siderographical  Tetaug  Winter-kill 

Slump  Tomato  Zumology. 

I  will  thank  you.  Sir,  to  state  in  what  other  Dictionary,  except 
mine,  you  found  the  foregoing  words,  and  how  many  or  which  you 
borrowed  from  mine. 

Your  compliance  with  this  request  will  oblige 

Your  humble  servant, 

N.  Webster. 


MR.  WORCESTER'S  ANSWER. 

Cambridge,  February  6,  1835. 
Dr.  Noah  Webster:  — 

Sir,  —  On  Friday  last  I  received  a  copy  of  the  Worcester  Palla- 
dium, in  which  was  found  a  letter  addressed  by  you  to  me,  contain- 
ing a  list  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-one  words  from  my  Dictionary, 
"  which,"  you  say,  ^^ prima  facie,  would  seem  to  have  been  taken 
from  your  Dictionary "  ;  and  you  add  that  you  "  will  thank  me  to 
state  in  what  other  Dictionary,  except  yours,  I  found  the  words,  and 
liow  many  or  which  I  borrowed  from  yours." 

As  a  lawyer.  Sir,  you  are  aware,  that,  when  an  accusation  is 
made,  the  burden  of  the  proof  lies  not  with  the  accused,  but  with 
the  accuser.  It  might  not,  therefore,  perhaps  be  improper  for  me 
to  take  the  ground  that  your  request  is  an  unreasonable  one,  and  for 
that  reason  to  decline  to  comply  with  it.  I  will  not,  however,  avail 
myself  of  this  right.  I  think  I  may  truly  say  that  in  my  transac- 
tions with  you,  it  has  been  my  intention  to  act  uprightly  and  faith- 
fully, nor  do  I  know  that  an  individual  of  those  who  are  most 
acquainted  with  the  facts  (yourself  excepted)  has  a  different  impres- 


sion.  In  answer  to  the  charges  which  have  appeared  against  me  in 
the  Worcester  Palladium,  I  have  already  made  some  statements  of 
facts,  none  of  which,  so  far  as  I  know,  have  been,  or  can  be,  dis- 
proved. You  now  call  for  something  further,  and  it  shall  be  cheer- 
fully granted.  I  feel  indeed  gratified  by  the  manner  in  which  you 
have  been  pleased  to  make  the  request ;  for  though  I  have  no  love 
of  contention,  yet  if  I  must  be  dragged  into  a  newspaper  controversy 
in  defence  of  myself  in  this  matter,  I  should  prefer  that,  of  all  men 
in  the  world,  it  should  be  with  yourself,  writing  under  your  own 
name. 

You  evidently  supposed.  Sir,  that  none  of  the  words  in  your  list 
were  to  be  found  in  any  Dictionary  that  was  published  before  the 
appearance  of  your  work ;  but  I  confess  I  am  somewhat  surprised 
at  this  fact,  inasmuch  as,  from  your  reputation  as  a  lexicographer,  it 
might  naturally  be  supposed  that  you  were  extensively  acquainted 
with  works  of  this  sort,  and  especially  with  the  works  which  are  so 
well  known  to  all  persons  who  have  any  just  pretensions  to  much 
knowledge  of  this  kind  of  literature,  as  are  the  several  publications 
which  I  shall  name.  I  shall  hot  go  out  of  my  own  library,  or  men- 
tion any  work  that  I  was  not  in  the  habit  of  consulting  in  preparing 
my  Dictionary. 

Of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty-one  words  in  your  list,  eighteen 
are  found  in  an  edition  of  Bailey's  Dictionary,  published  more  than 
a  century  ago,  and  twenty-one  in  a  later  edition ;  thirty-Jive^  in  Ash's 
Dictionary,  published  in  1775 ;  thirty-seven^  in  Todd's  Johnson's 
Dictionary  combined  with  Walker's,  edited  by  J.  E.  Worcester^  and 
published  before  the  appearance  of  yours  ;  twenty-one^  in  Mr.  Pick- 
ering's Vocabulary,  published  in  1816  ;  not  less  than  thirty  in  the 
Encyclopaedia  Americana,  and  nearly  as  many  in  Brewster's  New 
Edinburgh  Encyclopaedia;  —  and  in  these  several  works,  upwards  of 
ninety  of  the  words  are  found,  and  many  of  them  several  times  re* 
peated.  I  have,  in  addition  to  the  works  above  mentioned,  about 
fifty  English  Dictionaries  and  Glossaries,  in  a  majority  of  which  I 
have  ascertained  that  more  or  less  of  the  words  in  question  are  to  be 
found,  but  I  have  not  leisure,  at  present,  to  go  through  a  minute  ex- 
amination of  them.  'i 

Of  your  hundred  and  twenty-ene  words,  six  or  seven  are  not  to  be 
found,  so  far  as  I  can  discover,  in  your  Quarto  Dictionary,  and  one 
of  them  is  one  of  those  three  thousand  words  which  are  contained 
in  Todd's  Johnson's  Dictionary,  but  are  not  to  be   found  in  your 


83 

great  work,  and  which  were  inserted  by  me  in  the  octavo  abridgment 
of  your  Dictionary.  Whether  any  of  the  others  are  among  the 
words  which  were  inserted  in  the  abridgment  at  my  suggestion,  I 
cannot  say  with  certainty. 

From  the  preceding  statement,  you  may  perceive,  Sir,  that  your 
prima  facie  evidence  is  sufficiently  disposed  of,  as  it  respects  the 
most  of  the  words,  in  question.  You  inquire  "  in  what  other  Dic- 
tionary'''' the  words  are  to  be  found;  and  in  your  former  communi- 
cation to  the  Worcester  Palladium,  you  were  so  candid  as  to  say, 
"  that  I  borrowed  some  words  from  you,  you  suppose  to  be  proved 
by  the  fact  that  they  are  found  in  no  British  Dictionary ;  at  least  in 
none  that  you  have  seen."  Now,  Sir,  it  appears  to  me  that  it  would 
be  quite  as  sound  logic  to  infer  from  the  above  statements,  that  you 
have  not  seen,  or  at  least  have  not  carefully  examined,  many  British 
Dictionaries,  as  it  would  to  infer,  with  respect  to  a  list  of  words,  that 
because  you  do  not  know  of  their  existence  in  British  Dictionaries, 
they  must,  therefore,  have  been  taken  from  yours ;  for  it  appears 
sufficiently  evident  that  there  may  be  words  in  British  Dictionaries 
that  you  are  not  aware  of.  You  seem  also  to  have  overlooked  the 
circumstance  that  there  are,  besides  Dictionaries,  other  sources  for 
obtainmg  words,  which  are  open  to  me,  as  well  as  to  you ;  and  if  my 
success  in  finding  words  out  of  Dictionaries  should  bear  as  good  a 
comparison  with  yours,  as  it  seems  to  bear  in  finding  the  words  in 
question  in  them  (I  only  put  the  case  hypothetically),  it  would  not 
appear  very  wonderful,  if  I  were  able  to  find  the  few  remaining 
words  without  any  assistance  from  your  labors.  Of  the  hundred  and 
twenty-one  words,  you  have  given  authorities,  in  your  Dictionary, 
for  only  thirty-nme ;  but  I  can,  without  going  out  of  my  own  library, 
furnish  authorities,  in  all  cases  different  from  yours,  for  upwards  of 
a  hundred  of  them. 

With  respect  to  your  inquiry,  how  many  or  which  words  I  bor- 
rowed from  you,  I  have  already  said  that  I  did  not  know  that  a  single 
one  was  inserted  on  your  sole  authority.  I  do  not  affirm  this  to  have 
been  the  fact,  for  I  am  aware  that  oversights  of  this  sort  may  hap- 
pen ;  but  if  any  have  been  so  inserted,  I  sincerely  regret  the  circum- 
stance, and  will  engage  to  erase  from  my  Dictionary  every  word  that 
you  will  prove  to  have  been  thus  inserted.  But  if  I  saw  in  your 
Dictionary  a  word  with  which  I  was  familiar,  or  which  I  knew  was 
in  established  use,  or  found  in  respectable  authors,  I  regarded  it  as  a 
word  belongmg,  not   exclusively  to  any  individual,  but  to  all  who 


24 

write  and  speaJt  the  language,  to  be  used  by  them  on  all  proper  oc- 
casions, even  though  it  was  not  to  be  found  in  any  Dictionary  but 
yours.  Take,  for  example,  the  very  common  compound  word  semi- 
annual, one  in  your  list,  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  any  of  the  Eng- 
lish Dictionaries  that  I  have  examined,  and  you  are  entitled  to  the 
merit,  so  far  as  I  know,  of  having  been  the  first  to  insert  this  word  in 
a  Dictionary ;  yet  you  cannot  doubt  that  I  was  familiar  with  this  word 
before  your  Dictionary  was  published ;  and  as  I  have  had  occasion 
to  use  it  repeatedly  in  my  other  publications,  I  thought  myself  au- 
thorized to  insert  it  also  in  my  Dictionary.  All  the  words  in  your 
own  Dictionary  were  surely  to  be  found  in  Dictionaries  previously 
published,  or  had  been  previously  used  by  other  persons,  except  such 
as  you  coined  or  stamped  anew,  in  order  to  enrich  or  embellish  the 
language ;  and  with  regard  to  all  words  which  owed  their  origin  or 
new  form  to  you,  such  as  ammony,  bridegoom,  canail,  ieland, 
naivty,  nightmar,  prosopopy,  &c.,  it  has  been  my  intention  scrupu- 
lously to  avoid  them,  as  being  your  own  property,  and  I  have  not  even 
inserted  them  in  my  Vocabulary  of  Words  of  Various  Orthography, 
being  willing  that  you  should  for  ever  have  the  entire  and  exclusive 
possession  and  use  of  them.  There  is  a  considerable  number  of 
words  in  my  Dictionary  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  yours ;  yet 
they  have  all,  I  believe,  had  the  sanction  of  respectable  usage  :  I  can 
therefore  claim  no  exclusive  property  in  them ;  and  you  are  perfect- 
ly welcome,  as  I  have  before  intimated  to  you,  to  have  them  all  in- 
serted in  your  Dictionary. 

Should  you  be  disposed.  Sir,  to  pursue  the  examination  of  my  Dic- 
tionary further,  and  honor  me  with  any  more  of  your  inquiries,  I  will 
attend  to  them  as  promptly  as  my  engagements  may  render  it  con- 
venient. 

Having  paid  such  attention  to  your  request  as  my  engagements 
have  permitted,  and  answered  your  inquiry,  in  some  measure,  I 
trust,  to  your  satisfaction,  I  would  now.  Sir,  respectfully  make  a  re- 
quest of  you,  which  is,  that  you  would  he  so  good  as  to  inform  me 
whether  the  charges  against  me  in  the  Worcester  Palladium  were  oc- 
casioned hy  any  statements  made  by  you,  or  whether  you  have  ever 
made,  or  are  now  ready  to  make,  any  such  statements. 

Your  compliance  with  this  request  will  oblige 

Your  humble  servant, 

J.  E.  Worcester. 


25 


APPENDIX    II. 


When  the  preceding  pages  were  issued  from  the  press,  I  hoped 
I  should  not  have  occasion  to  make  any  addition  to  them  ;  but  some 
circumstances  have  since  occurred  which  seem  to  render  it  proper 
that  I  should  add  a  second  Appendix. 

Soon  after  the  pamphlet  was  printed,  I  sent  a  copy  of  it  to  the 
Rev.  Prof.  Chauncey  A.  Goodrich,  D.D.,  Dr.  Webster's  son-in-law, 
who  acted  as  his  literary  representative  in  relation  to  the  Abridg- 
ment, and  who  was  the  editor  of  the  last  edition  of  Dr.  Webster's 
Dictionary ;  and,  accompanying  the  pamphlet,  I  wrote  to  Professor 
Goodrich  a  letter  from  which  the  following  is  an  extract :  — 

"  It  is  doubtless  true  that  there  are  some  things  stated  in  the  pamphlet 
that  may  be  unpleasant  to  some  persons  ;  yet  I  hope  there  is  nothing  said 
that  any  one  has  good  reason  to  complain  of;  if  there  is,  I  shall  be  glad  to 
have  it  corrected.  In  our  correspondence,  long  since,  in  relation  to  the 
Abridgment  of  Dr.  Webster's  Dictionary,  you  expressed  great  satisfaction 
with  respect  to  my  management  of  the  matter ;  and  you  have  never  inti- 
mated to  me  that  you  thought  I  had  done  any  thing  wrong  or  improper,  in 
relation  to  that  work,  at  the  time  of  performing  the  labor  of  abridging  it,  or 
since.  I  cannot  doubt  that  you  suppose  I  have  been  unjustly  censured,  and 
that  I  have  little  reason  to  fear  the  strictest  scrutiny  on  the  subject.  I  am  not 
aware  that  my  character  has  suffered  in  the  estimation  of  those  who  know 
best  the  facts  in  the  case ;  though  doubtless  many  have  been  made  to  believe 
the  false  charges  that  have  been  made  against  me." 

Professor  Goodrich  in  a  courteous  letter  (dated  November  2d, 
1853,)  in  answer  to  mine,  said,  — 

**  It  is  perfectly  true,  as  you  say,  that  I  was  entirely  satisfied  with  re- 
spect to  your  management  in  abridging  the  American  Dictionary.  I  have 
always  spoken,  in  high  terms,  of  the  exactness  and  delicacy  with  which  you 
conducted  that  diflicult  concern.  /  have  also  always  felt  and  said,  that  I  kncio 
of  no  ground  whatever  for  any  imputation  upon  you,  as  though  you  had 
made  use  of  Dr.  Webster^s  Dictionary  in  the  production  of  your  own.  On 
the  contrary y  1  have  uniformly  stated,  that  you  Jiad  acted,  in  my  view,  with 
great  delicacy  on  this  subject;  and  that  if  any  coincidences  should  be  discov- 
ered between  the  two  works,  I  had  no  belief  they  were  intentional  or  con- 
scious ones  on  your  part.^^ 

In  replying  to  Professor  Goodrich's  letter,  (Nov.  21,)  I  said, — 


/ 


m 

•'I  am  conscious  of  having  intended  to  give  no  reason  for  any  com- 
plaint,  in  relation  to  the   use  of  Dr.    Webster's   Dictionary;    but  you 
must    be    aware   that  a   very  different   representation    has  been   widely 
circulated,   and  doubtless  great   numbers  have  been  made  to  believe  it 
to  my  injury.     With  respect  to  the  Messrs.  Merriara,  I  am  surprised  that 
you  should  say,  in  relation  to  what  they  have  published  respecting  me, 
— '  If  they  have  erred,  I  am  for  myself  satisfied  that  they  have  done  it 
through  inadvertence,  not  by  design.'     It  surely  has  all  the  appearance  ot 
*  design.'     And  I  would  take  the  liberty  to  ask  you,  if  persons  wholly  un- 
known to  you,  should  publish  far  and  wide,  things  relating  to  yourself, 
equally  false  and  injurious,  whether  you  would  not  be  likely  to  regard  them 
as  unscrupulous  men  of  the  world,  and  not  as  men  who  felt  it  incumbent  on 
them  '  to  do  unto  others  as  they  would  that  others  should  do  unto  them '  ?  — 
and  whether  you  would  be  likely  to  place  them  in  the  latter  class,  till  they 
were  ready  to  give  as  extensive  a  publicity  to  the  reparation,  as  they  had 
given  to  the  wrong?     If  you  will  compare  impartially  all  that  they  have 
published  in  reference  to  me  and  my  Dictionary,  with  what  my  publishers 
have  said,  perhaps  you  may  feel,  that  when  they  made  the  complaints  [re- 
lating to  my  publishers]  which  you  spoke  of,  you  might  with  propriety,  have 
referred  them  to  Matt.  vii.  5,  for  their  consideration  and  benefit. 

"  I  do  not  know  but  I  have  borne  these  false  representations  with  as  much 
patience  as  could  be  reasonably  expected.  I  have  not  heard  of  any  one's 
expressing  the  opinion  that  I  have  made  more  complaint  than  there  is  good 
reason  for." 

Early  in  December,  1  received  from  the  Messrs.  Merriam,  a  copy 
of  a  new  pamphlet,  in  which,  instead  of  making  any  reparation,  they 
have  added  to  the  "  falsehood  and  wrong,"  in  attempting  to  defend 
what  they  have  published ;  though  I  think  I  may  safely  say  they 
have  not  disproved,  and  that  they  cannot  disprove,  a  single  state- 
ment that  I  have  made  in  the  preceding  pages.  I  have  therefore  no 
occasion  to  modify  any  thing  that  I  have  said. 

Soon  after  receiving  this  pamphlet,  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Converse  in  re- 
lation to  one  of  their  false  statements,  as  follows :  — 

"  December  13,  1853.  To  Mr.  S.  Converse  :  —  Dear  Sir,  I  say  in  my 
pamphlet,  '  The  statement  that  I  was  employed  by  Dr.  Webster  or  his 
family  to  abridge  the  American  Dictionary  is  void  of  truth.  This  I  supposed 
and  still  suppose  to  be  strictly  true.  Is  it,  or  is  it  not  sol  You  were  the 
only  person  that  I  had  any  thing  to  do  with  in  undertaking  to  perform  that 
labor,  and  I  supposed  you  acted  on  your  own  responsibility,  as  in  an  affair  of 
your  own.  The  Messrs.  Merriam,  in  their  recent  pamphlet,  say,  '  Our  state- 
ment, we  submit  to  you  and  the  public,  in  its  fair  intent  and  spirit,  is  not 
void  of  truth,  and  you  were  employed  by  Dr.  Webster  or  his  family, 
through  Mr.  C,  as  their  agent,  to  abridge  his  Dictionary.' 


27 

"  Please  to  inform  me,  from  your  own  knowledge  of  the  facts,  whether 
my  statement  is  strictly  true  or  not.     Yours  &c.,  J.  E.  Worcester." 

Mr.  Converse^s  Answer^  dated  December  19,  1853. 
*'  To  Mr.  Worcester  :  —  Dear  Sir,  You  request  me  to  say  whether,  in 
negotiating-  with  you  to  abridge  Mr.  Webster's  Quarto  Dictionary,  I  acted 
as  agent  either  of  Dr.  Webster  or  his  family.  My  answer  is  that  I  acted  as 
agent  of  no  man.  My  arrangement  with  Mr.  Webster  and  his  family,  was 
permission  to  make  and  publish  an  octavo  abridgment  of  the  large  work  with 
liberty  to  include  some  slight  alterations  from  the  original.  The  alterations 
were  left  to  the  mutual  discretion  of  Professor  Goodrich  and  myself,  care- 
fully restricted  within  a  limit,  dictated  by  Mr.  Webster.  This  point  settled, 
I  determined  to  stereotype  the  work ;  and  as  the  whole  responsibility  of  the 
undertaking  rested  on  me  alone,  I  could  think  of  but  one  man  to  whom  I  felt 
willing  to  confide  the  important  trust  of  making  an  abridgment  which  in- 
volved a  risk  so  great.  Your  attainments  and  pursuits  had  eminently  quali- 
fied you  for  the  task,  and  I  decided  at  once  to  engage  your  services  if  possi- 
ble. Either  before  or  directly  after  my  correspondence  with  you  upon  the 
subject,  I  intimated  my  preference  and  purpose  to  Professor  Goodrich,  and 
received  his  cordial  approval.  The  risk  and  expense  both  of  abridging  and 
stereotyping  the  Octavo  Dictionary  were  exclusively  my  own.  The  family 
of  Mr.  Webster  had  no  share  in  either,  and  I  do  not  know  that  I  ever  dis- 
closed to  any  member  of  it  the  terms  of  my  contract,  either  with  yourself  or 
the  type-founders.     Yours  &c.,  S.  Converse.'* 

In  relation  to  the  statement  in  question,  which  the  Messrs. 
Merriam  have  repeatedly  made  in  a  way  designed  to  do  me  injury, 
and  which  they  still  persist  in,  the  reader  will  see  that  Mr.  Converse 
fully  sustains  what  I  have  said,  that  it  is  void  of  truth. 

The  Messrs.  Merriam  in  their  last  pamphlet  say,  —  "  We  take  it 
for  granted,  that  a  person  quoting,  publishing,  and  circulating  opin- 
ions and  statements  made  by  others,  indorses  those  opinions  and 
statements ;  or  else,  disbelieving  them,  gives  currency  to  what  he 
knows  to  be  falsehood  "  ;  —  and  in  their  pamphlet  dated  May,  1853, 
they  "  publish  and  circulate  "  a  letter  which  they  say  was  "  recently 
received  from  a  distinguished  teacher  in  Eastern  Massachusetts." 
They  do  not  give  the  name  of  the  writer,  or  of  the  place  of  his 
residence  (substituting  blank  lines,  as  given  below) ;  but  according  to 
their  own  statement,  they  "  indorse  "  its  contents. 

The  following  short  extract  is  a  specimen  of  this  letter. 

« yAprU  13,1853. 

"  Messrs.  G.  and  C.  Mebriam  :  — 

"  Gentlemen,  »  *  •  *  •  About  this  time  or  soon  after  I  heard  of 
Worcester's  Dictionary.     The  story  came  to  me  thus,  viz. :  —  that  Worces- 


28 

ter  was  (U  once  a  pupil  and  assistant  of  Webster,  and  seeing  that  he,  Webster, 
had  taken  a  step  in  advance  of  the  age,  though  not  in  advance  of  truth,  and 
also  that  Walker  was  'behind  the  time,'  treacherously  went  to  work, 
catering  to  the  Walkerian  taste  of  the  day,  and  produced  this  '  bastard 
Dictionary.'  *  •  «  ♦  • 

"  Respectfully,  and  truly  yours. 


I  will  leave  it  with  the  reader  to  characterize  such  a  course  and 
such  language  as  he  may  see  fit ;  —  with  the  single  remark,  that,  so  far 
from  having  been  "  a  pupil  and  assistant  of  Webster,"  I  never  saw 
him  to  speak  with  him  more  than  three  or  four  times  during  his  life. 

It  is  no  part  of  my  design  to  commend  my  own  Dictionary,  or  to 
disparage  any  other ;  —  but  my  purpose  has  been  to  defend  myself 
against  the  false  charges  which  have  been  widely  circulated  through- 
out the  country,  with  an  intention  to  do  me  injury,  and  which  great 
numbers,  as  I  understand,  have  been  made  to  believe. 

A  part  of  the  correspondence  between  Dr.  Webster  and  myself 
has  been  given  in  the  preceding  pages ;  and  I  have  been  advised  to 
bring  forward  the  whole  of  it,  which  would  probably  not  be  desired 
by  the  friends  of  Dr.  Webster ;  and  I  might  add  other,  things  relative 
to  the  subject ;  but  I  wish  to  do  nothing  more  than  the  case  would 
seem  to  require.  I  would  have  it  understood  that  I  do  not  shrink 
from  the  strictest  scrutiny  in  this  matter.  I  will  not  now  go  into 
the  inquiry  whether,  in  the  preparation  of  the  last  edition  of  Dr. 
Webster's  Dictionary,  an  abstinence  from  the  use  of  mine  was  ob- 
served equal  to  that  which  I  practised  in  relation  to  Webster's. 
Greater  liberty  than  I  used  may  have  been  taken  without  causing 
any  complaint  from  me. 

As  the  matter  now  stands,  I  think  I  may  boldly  ask  any  one  who 
has  taken  pains  to  understand  the  subject,  whether  in  relation  to 
Webster's  Dictionary,  from  first  to  last,  after  all  that  has  been  said 
and  done,  there  has  been  a  single  point  of  the  slightest  importance 
established  against  me  ?  —  whether  I  have  not  been  grossly  injured 
by  false  representations  without  having  given  the  least  provocation  ? 
—  and  whether  there  was  ever  kno^n  a  grave  charge  to  be  made 
more  completely  destitute  of  support  by  evidence,  or  less  creditable 
to  those  who  made  it  ? 

y  J.  E.  Worcester. 


29 


APPENDIX    IIL 


If  the  reader  has  perused  the  preceding  pages,  he  has  seen  that  it 
was  made  necessary  for  me  to  expose  a  gross  literary  fraud  perpe- 
trated by  the  publisher  of  my  Dictionary  in  London ;  and  that,  in 
making  this  exposure,  I  took  occasion  to  notice  some  misrepresenta- 
tions and  falsehoods  relating  to  myself,  which  had  been  widely  cir- 
culated in  this  country  by  the  Messrs.  G.  &  C.  Merriam,  the  publish- 
ers of  Dr.  Webster's  Dictionary,  particularly  in  their  Advertising 
Pamphlet,  published  in  May,  1853. 

As  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  do  me  injury  in  relation  to  the 
fact  of  my  having  made,  twenty-five  years  since,  the  Octavo  Abridg- 
ment of  Dr.  Webster's  Dictionary,  it  became  important  for  me  to 
obtain  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Sherman  Converse,  the  original  pub- 
lisher both  of  Dr.  Webster's  large  Dictionary  and  of  the  Octavo 
Abridgment,  —  he  being  the  only  person  who  knew  all  the  facts  in  the 
case.  I  had  not  seen  Mr.  Converse  for  a  considerable  number  of 
years ;  when  I  leist  heard  from  him,  I  was  informed  that  he  was  a 
"  confirmed  invalid  " ;  I  did  not  know  where  he  then  resided,  or,  in- 
deed, whether  he  was  still  living ;  and  I  was  for  some  time  appre- 
hensive that  I  should  not  be  able  to  obtain  any  thing  from  him.  But 
I  was  at  length  so  fortunate  as  to  receive  from  him  the  letter  which 
is  inserted  in  the  preceding  pages,  beginning  on  the  11th  page. 

The  first  twenty-four  pages  of  this  Pamphlet  were  issued  from  the 
press  in  October,  1853.  Soon  afterwards  the  Messrs.  Merriam  pub- 
lished a  second  Pamphlet,  containing  an  assertion  relating  to  Mr. 
Converse,  which  furnished  a  reason  for  my  writing  to  him  again.  I 
also  had  a  Second  Appendix  of  four  additional  pages  printed  in  Jan- 
uary, 1854,  and  in  this  Appendix  Mr.  Converse's  second  letter  is  to 
be  found,  on  the  27th  page.  I  also  took  the  liberty  to  insert  an  ex- 
tract from  a  letter  of  Professor  Goodrich  to  myself  (dated  Nov.  2d, 
1853),  together  with  my  answer.  After  the  Second  Appendix  was 
issued,  I  sent  a  copy  of  it  to  Professor  Goodrich,  together  with  the 
following  letter :  — 


30 

Cambridge,  Jan.  31, 1854. 
Dear  Sir  :  — 

I  now  send  you  a  copy  of  a  second  Appendix  to  the  small  Pamphlet  which 
you  received  some  weeks  since.  I  was  sorry  that  I  had  occasion  to  prepare 
the  Pamphlet,  and  I  am  sorry,  also,  that  I  have  had  occasion  to  add  this  sec- 
ond Appendix ;  for  I  think  I  may  truly  say  that  I  am  a  man  of  peace,  and 
not  disposed  to  contend  with  or  injure  any  one  ;  but  I  suppose  it  is  right  for 
me  to  defend  myself  by  stating  the  truth  and  exposing  falsehood. 

I  have  taken  the  liberty,  as  you  will  see,  to  insert  extracts  from  letters 
that  have  recently  passed  between  us,  —  which  I  hope  will  not,  under  the 
circumstances  of  the  case,  be  thought  an  improper  liberty.  Whether  you 
had  read  all  that  the  Messrs.  Merriam  had  published  relating  to  me,  when 
you  wrote  the  letter  dated  Nov.  2d,  I  know  not,  and  whether  you  will  think 
proper  further  to  defend  them,  you  will  of  course  judge  for  yourself;  but  you 
must  allow  me  to  believe  that,  were  you  in  my  position,  you  would  think  no 
better  of  their  conduct,  nor  bear  it  more  patiently,  than  I  do. 

From  information  which  I  have  recently  received,  I  have  learnt  that  the 
injury  which  I  have  sustained  by  the  misrepresentations  and  falsehoods  in 
relation  to  the  use  of  Dr.  Webster's  Dictionary,  which  have  been  widely 
circulated  throughout  the  country,  has  been  very  great,  —  much  greater  than 
I  had  heretofore  been  aware  of. 

It  seems  very  unfortunate  for  me  that  I  consented  to  perform  the  labor  of 
making  an  abridgment  of  Dr.  Webster's  Dictionary.  I  undertook  the  task, 
as  you  are  aware,  with  great  reluctance ;  yet  there  seems  to  have  been  no 
complaint  from  any  quarter,  that  the  work  was  not  done  in  a  faithful  and 
satisfactory  manner.  The  question  relating  to  the  use  of  Dr.  Webster's  Die* 
tionary  in  preparing  my  Comprehensive  Dictionary,  was  perhaps  sufficiently 
discussed  in  the  correspondence  between  Dr.  Webster  and  myself;  the  whole 
of  which  you  will  probably  not  suppose  that  I  should  be  unwilling,  as  it 
respects  myself,  to  have  reproduced.  With  respect  to  the  preparation  of  the 
Universal  Dictionary,  I  do  not  believe  that  you  can  find,  in  literary  history, 
a  case  of  the  kind,  in  which  so  scrupulous  an  abstinence  from  the  use  of  the 
materials  of  a  previous  work  (affording  so  valuable  materials  for  the  prepa- 
ration of  a  new  one),  was  observed,  as  was  observed  by  me  in  relation  to  Dr. 
Webster's  Dictionary.  And  I  have  the  satisfaction  to  think  that  you,  and 
all  others  who  know  most  of  the  facts  in  the  case,  believe  that  I  am  well 
entitled  to  take  the  ground,  and  to  have  it  conceded  to  me,  of  entire  exemp- 
tion from  all  blame^  from  first  to  last,  in  relbtion  to  Dr.  Webster'' s  Dictionary; 
that  I  have  given  no  cause  whatever  for  any  complaint;  and  consequently,  that 
all  the  injury  which  I  have  sustained,  or  may  hereafter  sustain,  in  relation  to 
this  matter,  has  been,  and  will  be,  caused  by  the  circulation  o/*  misrepresenta- 
tion AND  FALSEHOOD.  And  is  thc  circulation  of  these  misrepresentations  and 
falsehoods  to  be  continued?     With  respect  to  the  immorality  of  so  doing,  it 


SI 

would  seem  that  there  can  be  but  one  opinion  ;  and  it  is  equally  obvious  that 
justice  demands,  not  only  a  discontinuance  of  the  circulation,  but  also  a  re- 
traction to  be  made  and  as  widely  circulated  as  the  misrepresentations  and 
falsehoods  have  been.  And  this,  indeed,  would  give  but  a  partial  reparation 
of  the  injury  done. 

I  write  to  you  on  this  subject  as  to  one  peculiarly  connected  with  and 
interested  in  Dr.  Webster's  Dictionary  ;  and  I  write,  as  you  will  perceive, 
with  the  feelings  of  one  who  is  conscious  of  having  acted,  in  relation  to  that 
work,  with  strict  uprightness  and  fidelity,  and  who  has  been  grossly  injured 
without  having  given  any  provocation. 

Respectfully  and  faithfully  yours, 

J.  E.  Worcester. 
Rev.  Chauncey  A.  Goodrich,  D.  D. 

Soon  after  the  second  Appendix  was  issued,  the  Messrs.  Merriam 
published  a  third  Pamphlet,  in  which  they  inserted  an  extract  from 
the  above-mentioned  letter  of  Professor  Goodrich  to  me  (dated  Nov. 
2d),  of  which,  as  they  state,  "  Professor  Goodrich,  at  their  request, 
obliged  them  with  a  copy."  In  reference  to  this  letter,  and  the  U9e 
made  of  it,  I  thought  proper  to  write  to  Professor  Goodrich,  as  fol- 
lows :  — 

Cambridge,  April  14,  1854. 
Dear  Sir  :  — 

I  wrote  a  letter  to  you  on  the  31st  of  January,  and  sent  with  it  a  copy  of 
"  Appendix  II."  ;  which  I  suppose  you  have  received.  In  that  Appendix  I 
took  the  liberty  to  insert  an  extract  from  a  letter  which  I  received  from  you, 
dated  Nov.  2d,  1853.  By  a  Pamphlet  since  published  by  the  Messrs.  G.  & 
C.  Merriam,  I  perceive  that  you  furnished  them  with  a  copy  of  this  letter  of 
yours  to  me,  and  that  they  have  inserted  in  their  Pamphlet  an  extract  *  from 
the  letter  in  which  you  defend  them  from  attributing  to  me  a  participation  in 
the  "  gross  literary  fraud  "  relating  to  the  pubhcation  of  my  Dictionary  in 
London. 


*  The  following  is  the  extract  from  Professor  Goodrich's  letter  to  me,  which  is  published  by 
the  Messrs  Merriam  on  the  5th  page  of  their  third  Pamphlet :  — 

"  I  saw  him  [Mr  Charles  Merriam]  for  a  short  time,  early  in  August  last,  as  I  was  passing 
through  Springfield,  and  he  then  spoke  to  me  of  the  London  Title-page  and  Preface,  which  had 
been  sent  him  by  his  brother,  who  is  in  Europe.  He  spoke  of  them  in  a  way  which  showed  that 
he  had  not  the  least  suspicion  of  your  being  concerned  in  that  transaction.  He  alluded  to  the 
discrepancy  between  your  statement  and  the  Title-page,  only  as  showing  the  extent  to  wliich  Mr. 
Bohn  had  felt  himself  to  be  driven ;  since  he  was  compelled  to  alter  the  Title-page  and  suppress 
your  statement  that  you  had  made  no  use  of  Dr.  Webster's  labors.  The  whole  tenor  of  his  con- 
versation showed  me  that  he  had  no  intention  whatever  to  cast  any  personal  reflections  on  you." 


32 

The  Messrs.  Merriam  say,  in  this  Pamphlet  (p.  6),  "Mr.  Worcester 
should  not  have  felt  at  liberty  to  charge  us  with  attributing  to  him  a  partici- 
pation in  this  gross  literary  fraud,  when  we  had  not  so  charged  him."  And 
after  quoting  the  extract  from  your  letter,  they  say,  "  We  now  respectfully 
ask  Mr.  Worcester,  with  these  facts  before  him,  whether  it  was  just  in  him 
to  reaffirm  his  injurious  statements  on  this  point."  In  answer  to  this,  I  may 
say  that  /  never  so  charged  them,  or  thought  of  doing  so,  nor  did  I "  reaffirm  " 
any  such  thing ;  and  I  was  surprised  at  your  undertaking  to  defend  them 
from  a  charge  which  I  never  made,  and  which  I  did  not  then  know  that  any 
person  had  understood  me  as  having  made.  The  supposition  that  I  could 
have  taken  any  part  in  that  '*  literary  fraud  "  seems  too  absurd  to  be  believed 
by  any  intelligent  person ;  and  how  you  or  any  one  should  suppose  that  I 
accused  the  Messrs.  Merriam  of  charging  it  upon  me,  I  know  not.  You  will 
find  nothing  to  countenance  it  in  any  thing  that  I  have  written.  I  said 
(pp.  9  and  10),  *'  The  publishers  of  Webster's  Dictionary  seem  to  insinuate 
very  strongly,  in  the  paragraphs  which  I  have  quoted  (p.  5),  as  they  have 
done  on  other  occasions,  that  the  statement  is  not  correct,"  —  namely,  the 
statement,  "  that  I  am  not  aware  of  having  taken  a  single  word,  or  the 
definition  of  a  word,  from  Dr.  Webster's  Dictionary."  This  is  what  I  said 
in  relation  to  this  point,  and  what  I  understood,  and  what  others  have  under- 
stood, them  to  insinuate.  But  of  this  you  took  no  notice.  In  my  second 
Appendix  I  say  (p.  26),  and  I  now  repeat  it,  — "  I  think  I  may  safely  say 
that  they  [the  Messrs.  Merriam]  have  not  disproved,  and  that  they  cannot 
disprove,  a  single  statement  that  I  have  made." 

I  am  conscious  that  it  has  been  my  purpose  to  state  nothing  that  was  not 
strictly  true,  nor  to  use  language  harsher  than  necessary  to  "  call  things  by 
their  right  names."  A  simple  statement  of  facts,  as  I  believe,  is  all  that  I 
need  for  a  complete  vindication  of  my  course  throughout,  in  relation  to  Dr. 
Webster's  Dictionary.  It  has  been  my  purpose  to  do  nothing  in  relation  to 
that  work  which  should  be  ground  of  reasonable  complaint.  I  have  taken 
no  part  in  any  controversy  relating  to  it,  nor  have  I  ever  written  a  line,  nor, 
so  far  as  I  know,  induced  any  other  person  to  write  a  line  against  it ;  nor  is 
it  my  intention  ever  to  do  any  thing  of  the  kind. 

The  Messrs.  Merriam  say,  in  their  third  Pamphlet  (p.  7),  "  We  do  not 
doubt  that  Dr.  Worcester,  with  great  delicacy,  and  in  a  manner  highly  hon- 
orable to  himself,  conscientiously  abstained  from  the  use  of  Dr.  Webster's 
work."  This,  it  would  seem,  virtually  acquits  me  from  one  of  the  principal 
charges  which  have  been  very  widely  circulated  to  my  injury  ;  and  so  far, 
very  well.  But  afterwards  (pp.  9  and  10)  they  say,  "  We  might  suggest 
that  we  take  it  a  little  unkindly,  that,  in  quoting  from  a  private  conciliatory 
letter  of  Professor  Goodrich,  his  remark,  ^  If  they  have  erred,  I  am  for  my- 
self satisfied  they  have  done  it  through  inadvertence,  not  by  design,'  —  thus 
in  some  sort  assuming  a  concession  that  we  had  erred,  —  Mr.  W.  did  not 


33 

also  give  the  extract  we  have  quoted,  or  others  Irom  the  same  letter,  stating 
facts  which,  in  Professor  Goodrich's  opinion,  exonerated  us,  chiefly  or  wholly, 
from  the  imputation  of  having  '  erred.'  "  This  relates  to  the  "  extract "  * 
above  referred  to  as  inserted  in  their  last  Pamphlet ;  but  neither  in  that  nor 
in  any  part  of  your  letter  did  you  distinctly  allude  to  any  charge  which  1 
had  actually  made. 

They  say  in  reference  to  me  (p.  12),  "  Should  our  explanations  be  satis- 
factory to  him,  we  shall  be  rejoiced."  I  would  not  wish  to  be  thought  too 
difficult  or  unreasonable  in  such  a  case ;  and  I  doubt  not  that  I  am  as  well 
satisfied  as  you  would  be  in  having  so  injurious  misrepresentations  and 
falsehoods  widely  circulated  in  relation  to  yourself,  and  not  explicitly  re- 
tracted, when  you  were  conscious  of  having  given  no  provocation. 

Respectfully  yours, 

J.  E.  Worcester. 
Rev.  Chauncey  A.  Goodrich,  D.  D. 

In  their  third  Pamphlet,  the  Messrs.  Merriam  (as  the  reader  may  see 
in  the  accompanying  "Answer"  of  Mr.  Converse,  p.  3),  have  pub- 
lished a  garbled  form  of  Mr.  Converse's  second  letter  to  me,  with  re- 
marks upon  him  not  of  the  most  kindly  character ;  and  tliey  have 
attempted  to  prove,  and  claim  to  have  proved,  some  of  his  statements 
to  be  false.  Mr.  Converse  has  felt  himself  so  much  injured,  that  he 
has  deemed  it  necessary,  in  order  to  vindicate  the  truth  of  his  state- 
ments, to  be  at  the  expense  of  publishing  the  following  "Answer" 
to  the  attack  thus  made  upon  him ;  and  he  has  sent  his  Answer  to 
me  in  manuscript,  with  a  request  that  it  may  be  "  inserted  in  a  third 
Appendix  to  my  Pamphlet,  or  printed  in  a  proper  manner  to  be 
circulated  separately."  I  am  sorry  to  be  under  the  necessity  of 
pursuing  this  matter  further ;  but  it  seems  reasonable  that  Mr.  Con- 
verse should  have  an  opportunity  to  defend  himself  from  the  asper- 
sions cast  upon  him.  When  I  wrote  to  him,  I  had  no  expectation 
that  he  would  be  injured  in  this  manner.  That  a  gentleman  —  so 
prostrated,  as  he  is,  by  misfortune  and  long-continued  chronic  illness, 
yet  compelled,  by  painful  efforts,  to  obtain  his  daily  bread  —  should 
be  subjected  to  such  vexation  and  expense  for  doing  what  he  did  (to 
use  his  own  words)  "  simply  from  a  sense  of  duty,"  is  to  me  a  mat- 
ter of  much  regret ;  and  one  would  think  it  would  cause  "  compunc- 
tious visitings  "  in  other  persons  concerned. 

*  This  "extract "  is  inserted  at  the  bottom  of  the  Slst  page  ;  and  it  may  be  seen,  with  the 
remarks  of  the  Messrs.  Merriam  upon  it,  on  the  5th  page  of  their  Pamphlet ;  and  in  their  re- 
marks, they  do  not  distinctly  allude  to  any  charge  which  I  had  actually  made. 
5 


34 

The  reader  will  see  how  fully  Mr.  Converse  establishes  the  truth 
of  what  he  had  previously  stated  ;  and  that  he  has  shown,  in  relation 
to  the  statement  so  often  made  by  the  Messrs.  Merriam,  that  I  "  was 
employed  by  Dr.  Webster  or  his  family  to  abridge  the  American 
Dictionary,"  that  it  is  void  of  truth.  This  statement  in  itself  would 
be  of  little  importance,  except  for  the  hostile  use  that  has  been  often 
made  of  it. 

As  representations,  falsely  charging  me  with  gross  plagiarisms  on 
Dr.  Webster's  Dictionary,  have  been  widely  circulated  throughout 
the  country,  and  many  persons,  as  I  have  been  informed,  have  been 
made  to  believe  these  false  charges,  very  much  to  my  injury,  it  is 
high  time  that  the  public  should  have  correct  information  on  the 
subject. 

I  again  drop  this  controversy  for  the  present,  —  I  hope  for  ever. 
I  have  kept  back  matters  which,  perhaps,  I  may  have  occasion  here- 
after to  bring  forward  ;  but  I  hope  it  will  not  be  necessary.  As  the 
case  now  stands,  I  am  bold  to  ask  the  impartial  reader,  What  offence 
on  my  part  has  been  proved,  and  what  statement  that  I  have  made 
has  been  disproved  ? 

J.  E.  WORCESTER. 

May,  1854. 


POSTSCRIPT. 

Since  the  preceding  pages  were  issued,  the  Messrs.  Merriam  have  published 
another  Pamphlet^  which  Mr.  Converse  has  seen  fit  to  notice.  —  See  page  II  of  his 
"  Answer." 

That  a  gentleman  of  Mr.  Converse's  character  and  circumstances  —  a  witness 
wholly  uninterested,  and  the  only  individual  who  has  a  personal  knowledge  of  all 
the  facts  to  which  he  testifies  —  should  receive  such  treatment,  may  "astonish" 
others,  one  would  think,  as  well  as  himself. 

I  will  not  venture  to  characterize  this  new  Pamphlet ;  nor  can  I  undertake  to  re- 
mark upon  all  the  matters  that  are  remarkable  in  it.  But  I  will,  at  present,  merely 
request  every  person  who  may  take  an  interest  in  this  controversy,  to  read  all  that 
has  been  published  on  both  sides,  and  ask  himself,  what  offence,  on  my  part,  has 
been  proved  ;  —  or  what  statement  that  I  have  naade  has  been  disproved ;  —  how 
I  could  have  pursued  my  literary  labors  in  a  more  inoffensive  manner  than  I  have 
done ;  —  and  whether,  in  what  I  have  written  on  this  disagreeable  affair,  (for  a  per- 
sonal controversy  is  to  me  exceedingly  disagreeable,)  my  object  has  not  been,  not 
to  injure  others,  but  merely  to  defend  myself  from  misrepresentation  and  falsehood. 

J.  E.  WORCESTER. 
September,  1854. 


MR    CONVERSE'S  ANSWER 


TO 


AN  ATTACK  ON  HIM  BY  MESSRS.  C.  &  G.  MERRIAM. 


Camden,  N.  J.,  April,  1854. 
Mr.  Worcester  :  — 

I  herewith  send  you  an  Answer  to  the  attack  on  me  by  the  Messrs.  Mer- 
riam,  in  manuscript,  longer  than  I  could  wish,  and  perhaps  longer  than  you 
may  think  necessary,  I  wish  to  have  it  published  at  my  own  expense,  and, 
if  you  are  willing,  in  a  third  Appendix  to  your  pamphlet,  that  it  may  be  read 
in  connection  with  what  I  have  before  written.  It  is  my  wish  to  have  it 
printed  as  it  is,  notwithstanding  it  contains  a  letter  from  yourself  to  me  and 
my  answer,  which  have  already  appeared.  The  words  which  are  under- 
scored I  wish  to  be  italicized.  If  you  do  not  see  fit  to  have  it  inserted  in  a 
third  Appendix,  I  wish  to  have  it  printed  in  a  proper  manner  to  be  circulated 
separately.  I  fear  its  length  may  deter  you  from  allowing  it  to  appear  in 
the  connection  desired,  but  I  have  felt  it  necessary  to  give,  somewhat  in  de- 
tail, circumstances  connected  with  the  relations  I  sustained  to  Dr.  Webster 
and  his  Dictionaries,  that  others  may  see  why  he  should  naturally  have  felt 
desirous  of  yielding,  in  some  degree,  to  my  views  and  wishes  in  regard  to 
the  Abridgment,  although  so  directly  in  conflict  with  his  own.  But  for 
greatly  impaired  health,  and  the  necessity  of  almost  constantly  travelling 
from  place  to  place,  I  should  have  sent  you  my  reply  at  an  earlier  day. 

Very  faithfully  yours, 

S.  Converse. 


2 


MR.    CONVERSE'S    ANSWER, 


April,  1854. 
Mb.  "Worcester  :  — 

On  the  12th  of  August  last,  you  addressed  me  a  letter  requesting  me  to  say 
whether  I  knew  "  of  any  thing  ivrong  or  dishonorable  on  your  part,"  in  relation  to 
the  agency  you  had  in  making  the  Abridgment  of  Webster's  Octavo  Dictionary. 
I  replied,  ^'Nothing  ichatever";  and  gave  a  short  statement  of  facts  in  relation  to 
that  work.  On  the  13th  of  December  following,  you  addressed  me  another  letter, 
a  copy  of  which,  together  with  a  copy  of  my  answer,  I  here  insert. 

THE    LETTERS. 

"  December  13, 1853.  To  Mr.  S.  Converse  :  —  Dear  Sir,  I  say  in  my  pam- 
phlet, '  The  statement  that  I  was  employed  by  Dr.  Webster  or  his  family  to 
abridge  the  American  Dictionary  is  void  of  truth/  This  I  supposed,  and  still  sup- 
pose, to  be  strictly  true.  Is  it,  or  is  it  not  so  ?  You  were  the  only  person  that  I 
had  any  thing  to  do  with  in  undertaking  to  perform  that  labor,  and  I  supposed 
you  acted  on  your  own  responsibility,  as  in  an  affair  of  your  own.  The  Messrs. 
Merriam,  in  their  recent  pamphlet,  say,  '  Our  statement,  we  submit  to  you  and 
the  public,  in  its  fair  intent  and  spirit,  is  not  void  of  truth,  and  you  were  employed 
by  Dr.  Webster  or  his  family,  through  Mr.  C,  as  their  agent,  to  abridge  his  Dic- 
tionary!' 

"Please  to  inform  me,  from  your  own  knowledge  of  the  facts,  whether  my  state- 
ment is  strictly  true  or  not.     Yours,  &c.,  J.  E.  Worcester." 
Mr.  Converse^s  Answer,  dated  December  19,  1853. 

"  To  Mr.  Worcester  :  — Dear  Sir,  You  request  me  to  say  whether,  in  nego- 
tiating with  you  to  abridge  Mr.  Webster's  Quarto  Dictionary,  I  acted  as  agent 
either  of  Dr.  Webster  or  his  family.  My  answer  is,  that  I  acted  as  agent  of  no 
man.  My  arrangement  with  Mr.  Webster  and  his  family,  was  for  permission  to 
make  and  publish  an  octavo  abridgment  of  the  large  work,  with  liberty  to  in- 
clude some  slight  alterations  from  the  original.  The  alterations  were  left  to  the 
mutual  discretion  of  Professor  Goodrich  and  myself,  carefully  restricted  within  a 
limit  dictated  by  Mr.  Webster.  This  point  settled,  I  determined  to  stereotype 
the  work ;  and  as  the  whole  responsibility  of  the  undertaking  rested  on  me  alone, 
I  could  think  of  but  one  man  to  whom  I  felt  willing  to  confide  the  important  trust 
of  making  an  abridgment  which  involved  a  risk  so  great.  Your  attainments  and 
pursuits  had  eminently  qualified  you  for  the  task,  and  I  decided  at  once  to  engage 
your  services  if  possible.  Either  before  or  directly  after  my  correspondence  with 
you  upon  the  subject,  I  intimated  my  preference  and  purpose  to  Professor  Good- 
rich, and  received  his  cordial  approval.  The  risk  and  expense  both  of  abridging 
and  stereotyping  the  Octavo  Dictionary  were  exclusively  my  own.  The  family 
of  Mr.  Webster  had  no  share  in  either,  and  I  (Jo  not  know  that  I  ever  disclosed  to 
any  member  of  it  the  terms  of  my  contract,  either  with  yourself  or  the  type- 
founders. Yours,  &c.,  S.  Converse." 

When  replying  to  your  letters,  I  was  not  aware  that  testifying  to  your  integ- 
rity in  matters  of  mutual  concern,  twenty-five  years  ago,  could  give  offence  to  liv- 
ing man.    Up  to  that  time,  I  had  been  ignorant  of  the  misunderstanding  between 


3 

yourself  and  the  Messrs.  Merriam ;  I  had  seen  none  of  the  various  publications  in 
the  controversy ;  had  no  concern  with  its  merits ;  cherished  no  unkind  feelings 
toward  those  gentlemen ;  and  replied  to  your  letters  simply  from  a  sense  of  duty 
to  one  whose  high  standing  and  honorable  intercourse  had  challenged  my  respect 
from  our  earliest  acquaintance.  It  seems,  however,  from  your  letter  above  quoted, 
that  one  part  of  the  controversy  had  been  narrowed  down  to  the  truth  or  false- 
hood of  the  Messrs.  Merriam's  assertion,  that  "  you  were  employed  by  Dr.  "Web- 
ster or  his  family,  through  me,  as  their  agent,  to  abridge  his  Dictionary." 

My  answer  declared  that  '•''I  acted  as  the  agent  of  no  manP  At  this  the  Messrs. 
Merriam  have  taken  umbrage,  and  made  on  me  &rude  and  unprovoked  attack ;  a 
copy  of  which  I  here  insert,  that  they  may  have  the  full  benefit  of  it,  in  connec- 
tion with  what  I  am  about  to  say. 

THE    ATTACK. 

"  Now,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  preposterous  to  suppose  Dr.  "Webster  ever  save 
such  an  unqualified  license  to  any  person  to  go  forward  and  make  and  publish  an 
abridgment  of  this  work,  the  labor  of  his  life,  independently  of  his  own  control, 
as  Mr.  Converse's  letter  implies.  Every  circumstance  in  the  case  disproves  such 
a  position.  The  extract  published  by  Dr.  Worcester  himself  of  a  letter  to  him 
from  Dr.  "Webster,  of  July  27,  1828,  in  which  he  says,  '  Under  the  circumstances 
I  have  consented  to  it  [Dr.  Worcester's  abridging  the  work],  and  shall  send  the 
copy,'  shows  that  his  assent  was  necessary.  Dr.  Worcester,  likewise,  himself  ex- 
pressly disavows  having  had  any  control  over  the  orthography,  &c.,  which  he  says 
*were  decided  upon  by  his  [Dr.  Webster's]  representative  fviz.  one  of  his  'fam- 
ily,' Professor  Goodrich],  and  over  which  I  had  no  control.'  Nor  had  Mr.  Con- 
verse the  slightest.  Dr.  Goodrich,  in  his  Preface  to  the  Revised  Edition  of  Web- 
ster's 8vo.,  published  in  1847,  speaks  of  the  original  Abridgment  as  '  made  under 
the  author's  direction '  by  Dr.  Worcester. 

"  Now  hear  Mr.  Sherman  Converse,  in  his  suflSciently  egotistical  letter :  — 

"'/  acted  as  agent  for  no  man /determined  to  stereotype  the  work. 

/could  think  of  but  one  man  to  whom  /  felt  willing  to  confide  the  impor- 
tant trust ;  / decided  at  once  to  engage  your  services /intimated  my  pref- 
erence and  purpose  to  Professor  Goodrich The  risk  and  expense  both  of  abridg- 
ing and  stereotyping  the  Octavo  Dictionary  were  exclusivelu  my  own The  family 

of  Mr.  Webster  had  no  share  in  either,  and  /  do  not  know  that  /  ever  disclosed,' 
&c. 

"  We  have  obtained  from  the  Executors  of  Dr.  Webster's  Estate,  a  copy  of  the 
Contract  made  by  Dr.  W.  with  Mr.  Converse,  from  which  the  following  are  ex- 
tracts :  — '  The  said  Webster,  on  his  part,  having  the  fullest  confidence  in  the 
ability  and  judgment  of  Joseph  E.  Worcester,  Esq.,  of  Cambridge,  Massa- 
chusetts, he  doth  authorize  the  said  Converse  to  commit  to  said  Worcester  the 
work  of  abridging  said  Dictionary  into  an  octavo  volume  as  aforesaid,  on  the  fol- 
lowing principles.'  *  The  pronunciation,  as  marked  and  indicated  by  characters 
in  said  Dictionary,  shall  be  retained,  and  such  other  words  .....  shall  have  their 

pronunciation  indicated by  the  use  of  the  above-mentioned  characters,  and 

such  additional  ones  as  said  Webster  shall  furnish  and  point  out.''  '  Should  said 
Worcester  doubt  at  any  time  as  to  the  pronunciation  intended  by  said  Webster, 
the  words  in  question  shall  be  referred  to  said  Webster  for  his  decision.'  '  Any 
suggestions  made  by  said  Webster,  as  to  alterations  and  improvements,  shall  be 
attended  to.'  '  And  the  said  Webster  doth  hereby  agree  that  the  said  Converse 
may  retain  Jive  hundred  dollars,  from  the  first  payments  due  said  Webster  on  the 
proceeds  of  the  said  octavo  edition,  as  his  the  said  Webster's  share  of  a  recompense 
to  said  Worcester  for  his  services  in  abridging  the  Dictionary  aforesaid.^ 

"  Thus  much  for  Mr.  Sherman  Converse.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  statement  in 
his  letter  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  express  language  of  the  contract ;  while  the 
whole  spirit  of  his  statement  is  not  less  positively  contravened  by  the  spirit  and 
tenor  of  this  precise  legal  instrument.    We  do  not  think  we  need  waste  time  in 


comment.  If  Mr.  'Worcester  thinks  it  a  state  of  facts  on  which  to  raise  a  question 
of  personal  veracity,  we  are  willing  to  submit  the  case  without  argument  to  the 
verdict  of  the  public.  If  the  case  wei-e  his  own,  we  think  we  could  quote  a  pas- 
sage from  Matthew  which  he  might  properly  commend  to  the  other  party,  'for 
their  consideration  and- benefit,'  which  should  lead  them  to  be  more  charitable. 
Yet  we  presume  Dr.  Worcester  never  saw  this  Converse  contract,  —  his  direct 
negotiations  being  made  with  Mr.  C.  We  bring  no  charge  of  want  of  veracity  in 
this  matter  against  him.  Must  he  not  concede  he  has  been  hasty  in  advancing 
such  a  charge  against  others  ?  " 

Fortunate,  indeed,  that,  unlike  the  phenomena  in  nature,  the  Merriam  thunder 
is  without  lightning,  and  "  I  still  live." 

A  waggish  fellow-student  of  mine,  in  college,  assured  his  professor  that  he 
could  give  Scripture  authority  for  the  crime  of  suicide.  "  Judas  went  and  hanged 
himself  "  ;  '•  go  thou  and  do  likewise." 

If,  by  adopting  the  same  rule  of  quotation,  the  gentlemen  think  they  have 
gained  a  victory  over  me,  let  them  look  to  their  laurels ;  they  will  find  them  no 
Evergreens. 

To  a  clear  understanding  of  what  I  had  said,  strict  justice  required  the  publi- 
cation of  both  my  letters  in  full,  in  connection  with  their  attack.  But  they  have 
preferred  to  invest  the  subject  with  darkness,  rather  than  light. 

My  first  letter  they  have  omitted  entirely,  and  suppressed  what  was  essential  in 
the  second.  Their  quotations  from  the  contract  may  have  been  made  by  the 
same  rule.  I  have  not  seen  that  instrument  for  more  than  twenty  years,  but  am 
content  to  take  the  extracts  as  they  have  given  them. 

Would  my  limits  permit,  it  would  afibrd  some  satisfaction  to  give  you,  in  this 
place,  a  history  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  my  connection  with  Dr.  "Webster 
and  his  Dictionaries ;  and  to  show  you  why  he  had  failed  to  procure  the  publica- 
tion of  the  original  work,  either  in  this  country,  England,  or  France,  previous  to 
the  application  made  to  myself. 

Dr.  "Webster  returned  from  Europe,  with  his  Manuscripts,  greatly  disheartened, 
if  not  in  despair  of  their  publication.  In  process  of  time.  Professor  Goodrich 
asked  me  if  I  would  publish  the  Dictionary.  My  answer  was.  Yes,  on  certain 
conditions ;  one  of  which  was  that  I  should  have  the  right,  on  fair  terms,  to  an 
octavo  abridgment.  My  conditions  were  accepted  by  Dr.  Webster ;  a  contract 
was  executed,  and  as  early  as  possible  the  work  was  put  to  press. 

But  owing  to  a  movement  by  Dr.  Webster  in  early  life,  having  for  its  object,  as 
has  been  said,  to  correct  the  anomalous  character  of  English  orthography,  by 
spelling  each  word  as  pronounced,*  such  was  the  prejudice  in  the  community 
against  him,  as  a  Lexicographer,  and  such  the  misapprehension  concerning  the 

*  Whether  Dr.  "Webster  ever  actually  made  such  a  moTement,  with  such  design,  I  have  no 
personal  knowledge  j  but  in  laboring  to  secure  favor  for  the  large  Dictionary,  I  found  that  the 
charge  and  belief  that  he  had  done  so  had  become  almost  universal,  and  to  that  fact  alone  I  could 
attribute  the  deep-rooted  prejudice  and  utter  misapprehension  throughout  the  country,  in 
regard  to  the  real  character  of  his  great  work.  He  was  said  to  have  published  a  small  volume, 
which  I  have  never  seen,  in  which  he  gave  examples  of  the  changes  proposed.  The  late  Professor 
Kingsley,  of  Yale  College,  I  am  quite  sure,  told  me  that  he  had  seen  a  copy,  and  quoted  some  of 
the  examples,  one  of  which  was  noshun,  for  notion.  To  the  belie/of  this  statement,  whether  true 
or  not,  I  doubt  not  the  prejudice  and  misapprehension  were  justly  attributable. 


real  character  of  his  work,  that,  before  my  agents  could  succeed  at  all  in  obtain- 
ing subscribers,  it  became  necessary  for  me  to  confer  personally  with  a  great  num- 
ber of  the  principal  literary  and  influential  men  throughout  the  Union ;  and  by 
means  of  extracts  from  the  manuscripts,  and  verbal  explanations,  to  disabuse  their 
minds.  My  efforts  were  so  successful,  that  by  the  countenance  and  patronage  of 
most  of  the  distinguished  gentlemen  whom  I  met,  and  by  means  of  written  recom- 
mendations of  the  Dictionary  from  several  of  them,  I  was  enabled  to  secure  suf- 
ficient patronage  to  defray  the  actual  expenses  of  publication,  but  by  no  means  to 
remunerate  for  time  and  labor. 

Among  the  great  number  of  gentlemen  whom  I  met  for  the  purpose,  were  Mr. 
Pickering,  Judge  Story,  William  Sullivan,  and  Mr.  Everett,  of  Boston ;  Chancel- 
lor Kent,  Dr.  Francis,  Professor  Eenwick,  and  David  B.  Ogden,  of  New  York  ; 
Matthew  Gary,  Judge  Hopkinson,  Mr.  Duponceau,  Dr.  Rush,  and  members  gen- 
erally of  the  celebrated  Wistar  Club,  of  Philadelphia ;  John  Quincy  Adams,  Mr. 
Calhoun,  Mr.  Clay,  Daniel  Webster,  Mr.  Wirt,  and  members  of  Congress  from 
all  parts  of  the  United  States,  at  Washington.  By  the  time,  therefore,  that  the 
first  volume  was  out  of  press,  my  intercourse  with  the  influential  part  of  the  com- 
munity at  large  had  become  so  extensive  as  to  enable  me  to  form  a  tolerably  cor- 
rect estimate  of  what  would  be  popular  or  unpopular  in  a  new  dictionary ;  and  led 
me  to  a  decision  to  put  the  Octavo  Abridgment  in  progress  at  once,  if  Dr.  Web- 
ster would  consent  to  sundry  alterations  and  variations  from  the  original.  He  had 
agreed  to  give  me  the  right  of  an  Octavo  Abridgment ;  but  then,  he  was  ex- 
pected to  make  it  himself,  or  procure  it  to  be  made  at  his  own  expense,  and  only 
in  reasonable  time,  after  the  publication  of  the  original  work  entire.  This  brings 
me  to  a  passage  in  my  intercourse  with  Dr.  Webster,  from  the  history  of  which  I 
shall  not  lift  the  veil.  He  has  gone  to  his  rest,  and  no  man  was  witness  to  our 
interviews.  Were  he  here,  he  would  answer  for  himself,  and  would  confirm  my 
statements. 

Dr.  Webster  was  a  man  of  peculiar  temperament ;  his  general  health  had  be- 
come greatly  impaired  j  his  physical  powers  were  lamentably  prostrated ;  and  his 
nervous  system  had  reached  a  degree  of  excitability  exceedingly  painful  to  him- 
self. In  addition  to  all  this,  he  was  keenly  alive  to  whatever  might  compromit 
his  integrity  and  character  as  an  author.  Many  months  must  elapse  before  the 
printing  of  the  second  volume  of  the  original  could  be  completed ;  and  all  the 
proof-sheets  must  be  revised  and  corrected  by  himself.  He,  therefore,  justly  said 
that  he  could  sustain  no  additional  labor,  and  that  I  had  no  claim  on  him,  then, 
either  to  abridge  the  work  himself  or  to  employ  another. 

Under  all  these  circumstances,  I  had  come  to  him  with  a  proposal,  not  only  to 
assume  new  burthens,  but  to  make  an  abridgment,  with  alterations  and  variations 
from  the  original,  to  which  he  said  he  could  not  submit.  Dr.  Webster  did  not  mean 
to  treat  me  unkindly  or  unjustly,  but  I  had  placed  him  in  a  painful  dilemma,  and  I 
do  not  believe  he  would  ever  have  made  the  concessions  he  did  but  for  a  desire  to 
do  me  a  favor,  superadded  to  the  kind  offices  of  Professor  Goodrich  exerted  in  my 
behalf. 

The  result  of  the  whole  matter  was,  that  he  gave  me  permission  to  employ  a 
suitable  person,  if  I  could  find  one,  to  make  the  abridgment.    He  also  gave  me 


6 

permission  to  introduce  such  modifications  from  the  original  as  he  had  consented 
to  in  conversation,  and  within  such  limits  as  lie  should  prescribe ;  and,  in  conclu- 
sion, he  added  with  emphatic  feeling ^  "I  shall  submit  the  modifications  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  Professor  Goodrich  and  yourself,  and  that  I  may  not  be  responsible  for 
them  as  author^  I  shall  give  the  copyright  to  another"  naming  the  person.  This 
same  feeling,  in  regard  to  the  integrity  of  his  authorship,  he  afterwards  manifested 
in  his  Preface  to  the  Octavo  Abridgment,  as  follows  :  — 

EXTBACT  FBOM  THB  PKEFACE. 

"  As  the  author  of  the  original  work  has  intrusted  the  superintendence  of  the 
abridgment  to  another  person,  he  is  not  to  be  considered  as  responsible  for  any 
of  the  modifications  already  alluded  to." 

Dr.  Webster's  permission  made  me  free  to  act,  but  before  I  proceed  further  let 
me  here  join  issue  with  the  Messrs.  Merriam. 

They  say,  —  "  You  were  employed  by  Dr.  Webster  or  his  family,  through  Mr. 
Converse,  as  their  agent,  to  abridge  his  Dictionary." 

/  say,  —  that  ^^  I  acted  as  the  agent  of  no  man."" 

We  shall  now  see  which  assertion  will  stand,  and  whether  the  other  statements 
in  my  letters  were  true. 

Dr.  Webster  left  me  to  myself;  his  permission  was  to  employ  a  suitable  per- 
son, but  he  suggested  no  name.  My  first  application  was  to  you.  After  writing 
twice  to  you  on  the  subject,  and  receiving  a  negative  answer  to  both  applications, 
I  visited  you  at  your  residence  in  Cambridge.  You  were  prevailed  on  to  under- 
take the  labor ;  and  for  the  first  time  apprised  me  of  the  existence  of  your  Synop- 
sis of  Words  differently  pronounced  by  diflferent  Lexicographers ;  and  of  the  fact 
that  Todd's  Walker's  Johnson  contained  a  great  number  of  words  which  were  not 
comprised  in  the  large  Dictionary  which  you  had  consented  to  abridge.  The  use 
of  your  Synopsis  I  eagerly  secured,  as  the  best  available  substitute  for  what  had 
been  denied  me  by  Dr.  Webster,  namely,  the  insertion  of  Walker's  pronunciation 
in  the  text.  Our  contract  was  accordingly  made  to  include  both  the  use  of  your 
Synopsis  and  the  insertion  of  the  extra  words  from  Todd's  Johnson,  which,  if  I 
correctly  remember,  were  found  to  exceed  three  thousand.  Our  contract  bears 
date  July  11,  1828. 

Having  returned  to  New  Haven,  I  called  on  Dr.  Webster ;  informed  him  that 
I  had  made  a  contract  with  you  to  abridge  the  Dictionary,  and  requested  him  to 
execute  a  written  agreement,  confirming  what  I  had  done,  agreeable  to  his  verbal 
permission,  and  securing  to  me  both  the  right  to  abridge  and  publish.  Accord- 
ingly, his  Conti'act  with  me  was  duly  executed,  and  bears  date  July  26,  1828; 
fijleen  days  after  my  contract  with  you  had  been  executed  in  Cambridge  !  Great 
candor,  certainly,  in  the  Messrs.  Merriam,  to  ^^ presume  that  Dr.  Worcester  never 
saw  this  Converse  Contract."  * 

At  the  date  of  yours  it  would  have  been  difficult  to  see  that  which  had  no  exist- 
ence. But  why  did  you  never  see  or  hear  of  it  afterwards  1  For  the  good  reason 
that  you  had  no  concern  with  it.  The  subject-matter  of  the  contract  concerned 
only  Dr.  Webster  and  myself.  My  having  employed  you  to  abridge,  and  his  hav- 
ing consented  to  the  introduction  of  various  modifications  from  the  original  at  my 


discretion,  made  it  necessary  for  Dr.  Webster  to  prescribe  to  me  the  limits  beyond 
which  I  should  have  no  right  to  introduce  a  variation  ;  that,  if  I  should  claim  any 
thing  beyond  those  limits,  I  might  be  confronted  with  the  Contract.  But  for  this 
necessity,  the  Contract  would  have  contained  a  simple  agreement  to  print  and 
publish.  This  very  feature  in  it  shows  conclusively  that  you  had  been  employed 
by  me,  and  not  by  Dr.  Webster;  and  that  I  was  to  share  with  Professor  Goodrich 
the  discretionary  power  over  the  modifications  within  the  limits  prescribed. 

Within,  we  had  discretion ;  beyond,  not  a  particle.  Dr.  Webster's  authority 
was,  there,  supreme ;  and  had  the  work  which  I  had  employed  you  to  do  been 
simply  to  make  an  abridgment  of  the  large  Dictionary,  nothing  would  have  been 
necessary  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Webster  but  to  put  the  copy  into  your  hands  and  tell 
you  to  preserve  the  integrity  of  the  original. 

It  was  the  permission  given  for  discretionary  modifications  by  a  third  indepen- 
dent party  that  rendered  limitation  necessary,  and  the  delegation  of  Professor 
Goodrich,  as  Dr.  Webster's  representative,  to  see  that  there  should  be  no  trans- 
gression. It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  modifications  were  not  of  Dr.  Web- 
ster's seeking;  that  no  man  suggested,  or,  so  far  as  I  know,  desired,  their  intro- 
duction, but  myself;  and  that  he  only  granted  with  painful  reluctance  what  he 
would  have  been  better  pleased  to  withhold. 

My  discretion,  touching  the  variations,  was  that  of  a  business  man.  I  wished 
for  such  changes  as,  in  my  judgment,  would  either  increase  the  popularity  of  the 
work  or  protect  it  against  injurious  criticism.  Professor  Goodrich  denied  me 
nothing  I  claimed  within  the  discretion  allowed ;  but  so  careful  was  he  not  to 
transgress,  that  you  will  remember,  while  we  were  at  your  house  settling  instruc- 
tions for  your  guide,  he  denied  me  a  certain  modification,  till  he  had  made  a  spe- 
cial journey  to  New  Haven  to  consult  Dr.  Webster. 

But  if  Dr.  Webster  had  made  the  abridgment  himself,  he  would  have  made  it 
for  me,  and  not  for  another.  When,  therefore,  he  gave  me  permission  to  employ 
you,  he  only  authorized  me  to  do  for  myself  what,  from  pressure  of  circumstances, 
he  could  not  do  for  me.  Hear  him  in  his  own  letter  to  you  the  day  after  his  Con- 
tract with  me  had  been  executed :  — 

"New  Haven,  July  27th,  1828. 

"  Sir,  —  Mr.  Converse  has  engaged  you  to  abridge  my  Dictionary,  and  has  re- 
quested me  to  forward  you  the  copy  of  the  first  volume.  This  was  unexpected  to 
me,  but  under  the  circumstances  I  have  consented  to  it,  and  shall  send  the  copy.** 

Strange  language  this,  if  he  had  employed  you  himself  to  abridge  his  Diction- 
ary, through  me  as  his  agent.  The  Messrs.  Merriam  quoted  part  of  this  letter ;  the 
whole  would  have  defeated  their  purpose.  Dr.  Webster  has  expressed  in  it  his 
own  views  of  what  he  had  done  in  his  Contract  the  day  before,  namely,  consented  to 
my  having  engaged  you  to  abridge  his  Dictionary.  My  request  that  he  would 
forward  you  the  copy,  and  his  promise  to  comply,  shows  the  engagement  with 
you  to  abridge  to  have  been  mine,  and  not  his.  The  absurd  supposition  that,  being 
the  agent  of  Dr.  Webster,  I  could  have  employed  you  on  my  own  account  without 
disclosing  my  agency,  I  pass  by ;  and  yet,  had  such  been  the  fact,  yon  would  have 
been  quite  sure  to  hear  from  him  on  the  subject  in  due  time. 
6 


8 

But  let  me  put  myself  in  immediate  contrast  with  the  Messrs.  Merriam  on  a 
single  point. 

They  say,  —  "  It  is  preposterous  to  suppose  Dr.  Webster  ever  gave  such  unqual- 
ified license  to  any  person  to  go  forsvard  and  make  and  publish  an  abridgment  of 
this  work,  the  labor  of  his  life,  independently  of  his  own  control^  as  Mr.  Converse's 
letter  implies." 

In  the  same  letter  to  which  they  refer,  I  say,  — "  My  arrangement  with  Mr. 
Webster  and  his  family  was  for  permission  to  make  and  publish  an  octavo  abridg- 
ment of  the  large  work,  with  liberty  to  include  some  slight  alterations  from  the 
original.  The  alterations  were  left  to  the  mutual  discretion  of  Professor  Good- 
rich and  myself,  carefully  restricted  within  a  limit  dictated  by  Mr.  Webster." 

The  Messrs.  Merriam  have  suppressed  this  whole  passage  in  making  their  ex- 
tracts from  my  letter,  and  then  have  the  face  to  assert  that  it  implies  exactly  the 
contrary  of  what  it  declares !  The  mere  school-boy  understands  plain  English 
better  than  to  say  that  my  letter  implies  no  control  over  the  abridgment  on  the  part 
of  Dr.  Webster.  Nor  could  the  thick  skull  of  a  Hottentot  so  obscure  the  percep- 
tion as  not  to  comprehend  the  necessity  of  an  author's  consent  and  authority  either 
to  abridge  or  publish  his  work. 

But  the  gentlemen  rely  on  the  Contract  to  prove  me  to  have  been  the  agent  of 
Dr.  Webster. 

What  says  that  Instrument  ? 

"  He  (the  said  Webster)  doth  authorize  the  said  Converse  to  commit  to  said  Wor- 
cester the  work  of  abridging  said  Dictionary  into  an  octavo  volume." 

And  is  this,  language  which  such  a  man  as  Dr.  Webster  would  have  used,  had 
it  been  his  purpose  to  constitute  and  appoint  me  his  true  and  lawful  agent  and  at- 
torney, to  employ  you  to  abridge  his  Dictionary  1  I  had  already  employed  you 
fifteen  days  before,  and  that  without  his  knowledge,  and  he  now  simply  gives  me 
authority  to  carry  out  what  I  had  undertaken.  To  authorize,  simply  gives  a  right 
to  act,  but  makes  no  appointment  and  constitutes  no  agency.  To  commit,  is  simply 
to  put  into  the  hands  or  power  of  another,  or  to  intrust.  As  the  Contract  was  a 
legal  Instrument,  Dr.  Webster  then  gave  me  legal  right,  power,  or  authority, 
whichever  you  choose,  to  put  into  your  hands  or  power,  or  to  intrust  to  you,  the 
iDcrk  of  making  the  abridgment.  In  other  and  simple  language,  he  gave  me  per- 
mission, under  the  sanction  of  a  sealed  Instrument,  to  employ  you  to  abridge  his 
Dictionary.  And  this  I  had  already  done,  on  my  ©wn  responsibility  and  at  my 
own  risk  and  expense.  But  the  performance  of  this  work  or  labor  of  making  the 
abridgment  on  your  part,  had  no  connection  with  Dr.  Webster's  authority  or  con- 
trol over  the  matter  of  the  Dictionary  as  author.  Nor  could  it  impart  to  the  abridg- 
ment the  least  authority  of  your  own. 

The  Messrs.  Merriam  have  assumed  false  premises,  and  been  led  to  assert,  and 
pertinaciously  maintain,  what  is,  per  se,  afalseJiood,  for  want  of  .clear  perception  of 
what  constitutes  an  abridgment.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  believe  the  gentlemen 
would  wilfully  or  knowingly  utter  a  falsehood  ;  though  I  could  wish  that,  in  their 
extracts  from  my  letter,  they  had  been  less  careful  to  suppress  the  truth. 

To  say  that  the  abridgment  was  made  under  Dr.  Webster's  authority,  control, 
or  direction,  as  author^  is  simply  to  assert  a  truism  in  relation  to  what  is  inseparable 


from  the  very  idea  and  character  of  an  abridgment.  Dr.  Webster  was  author  of  the 
large  Dictionary.  That  work,  therefore,  embodied  his  authority  as  a  Lexicog- 
rapher. As  an  English  Lexicon,  it  represe^ed  his  authority ;  but  such  authority 
was  based  solely  on  his  authorship. 

And  what  is  an  abridgment  ?  A  mere  epitome  or  compend  of  an  original  or  more 
extended  work,  and  carries  with  it,  from  the  original,  the  full  character  and 
authority  of  authorship ;  and  that  whether  made  by  the  author  himself  or  by  another 
hand.  Disconnected  from  such  authority,  it  is  no  longer  an  abridgment.  To 
have  cut  into  the  large  Dictionary  right  and  left,  and  altered,  garbled,  suppressed, 
added,  and  omitted  ad  libitum,  would  not  have  been  to  abridge  the  work,  but  to 
make  a  new  Dictionary  out  of  materials  more  or  less  filched  from  Dr.  Webster, 
but  in  no  sense  representing  him  or  possessing  his  authority.  Purely  to  abridge 
the  large  Dictionary  would  have  been  to  make  a  simple  epitome  of  it,  changing  in 
no  respect  whatever  the  character  or  features  of  the  original.  That  man,  there- 
fore, who  does  not  perceive  that  an  abridgment,  preserving  the  integrity  of  the 
original,  is  in  its  own  nature  inseparable  from  the  authority  of  the  author,  must 
have  the  osfrontis  of  an  animal  of  stolid  celebrity.  Dr.  Webster,  therefore,  could 
incur  no  risk  in  allowing  me  to  employ  whom  I  pleased,  if  competent,  to  abridge 
his  Dictionary,  and  this  he  very  well  knew.  The  only  trouble  in  the  case,  as  it 
existed,  resulted  from  the  discretion  given  to  a  third  party  to  dictate  modijications 
from  the  original  to  a  certain  extent.  Such  modifications  could  not  carry  with 
them  the  authority  of  Dr.  Webster ;  bulr  the  Abridgment  at  large  was  intended 
to  do  so,  and  hence  Dr.  W.  was  elaborate  in  his  precautions  to  guard  the  original 
against  modifications  he  had  not  conceded,  and  was  careful  to  disclaim  those 
which  he  had.  Singular  man  Dr.  Webster,  to  have  employed  me  as  his  agent  to 
do,  or,  which  would  have  been  the  same  thing,  to  have  done  himself,  that  of  which 
he  declared  beforehand  he  would  not  take  the  responsibility ;  and  on  which,  when 
done,  he  cnstamped  the  seal  of  repudiation.  Perhaps  the  Messrs.  Merriam  will 
explain  how  this  could  happen.     They  are  astute  in  argument. 

But  the  Messrs.  MeiTiam  have  published  the  Dictionary  for  years,  and  ought 
to  have  learned  by  this  time  that  to  authorize  a  party  to  do  an  act  is  one  thing,  and 
to  employ  a  party  as  agent  to  do  the  same  act  is  quite  another.  They  are  author- 
ized to  publish  the  large  work,  but  do  they  publish  it  as  the  agents  of  Dr.  Web- 
ster's heirs  1  If  so,  they  were  constituted  agents  by  terms  very  different  from 
authorize. 

They  ought  also  to  have  learned  that  an  agency  binds  the  principal  for  all  ex- 
penses incurred,  or  agreed  to  be  incurred,  and  frees  the  agent  from  all  liability  to 
the  party  with  whom  he  contracts,  and  also  to  the  principal,  if  he  adheres  to  in- 
structions. 

I  commend  the  gentlemen  to  the  study  of  the  Dictionary,  and  beg  to  introduce 
to  their  acquaintance  the  words  Courtesy  and  Candor. 

Dr.  Webster  did  ttot  make  me  his  agent  to  employ  you  to  do  the  work  of  abridg- 
ing his  Dictionary,  or  for  any  other  purpose,  but  took  special  care  that  I  should 
not  be  so  in  fact,  or  be  held  to  be  so  in  law.  He  did  not  mean  to  assume  the  risk, 
responsibility,  or  expense  of  making  the  abridgment.  He  knew  very  well  the 
precise  meaning  of  terms,  and  he  purposely  made  use  of  such  as  would  preclude 


10 

all  idea  of  my  having  acted  as  his  agent,  and  therefore  protect  him  against  any 
liability  which  might  be  incurred  by  my  acts  under  such  pretence.  He  did,  it  seems 
provide  in  the  Contract  for  indemnity  to  me  to  the  amount  of  five  hundred  dollars, 
should  so  much  ever  be  derived  as  copyright  from  the  success  of  the  publication. 
But  that  subjected  him  to  no  risk,  responsibility,  or  expense  in  the  outset ;  and 
even  this  provision,  in  the  lapse  of  twenty-five  years,  had  escaped  my  memory; 
and  the  Messrs.  Merriam  are  welcome  to  any  relief  this  semblance  of  discrepancy 
may  afford  them. 

As  to  their  tart  allusion  to  my  egotism,  it  is  painful  to  be  made  sensible  of  hav- 
ing offended  true  modesty ;  yet  even  in  this  case,  it  would  not  be  difiBcult  to  polish 
and  return  a  shaft,  with  an  aim  and  an  arm,  that  might  make  it  felt. 

They  have  raked  from  the  dust  and  repose  of  bygone  years,  a  private  contract 
with  which  they  had  no  concern  ;  have  violated  the  confidence  of  its  seal,  for  which 
they  can  offer  no  justification ;  and,  by  misconstruction  of  its  simple  language, 
have  assayed  to  sustain  a  bad  cause  by  a  worse  argument. 

They  have  invaded  the  sanctuary  of  private  feeling,  and  dragged  forth  confi- 
dential transactions  and  personal  misfortunes,*  having  no  relevancy  whatever  to 
the  matter  in  debate,  and  committed  them  to  the  wings  of  the  wind  in  pamphlets 
and  newspapers.  And  wherefore?  Simply  because  I  had  testified  to  your  integ- 
rity and  honor  in  matters  between  us,  in  1828,  and  stated  that,  in  employing  you 
to  abridge  his  Dictionary,  I  did  not  act  as  the  agent  of  Dr.  Webster ! 

Time  has  been  when  an  attack  so  wanton,  affording  provocation  so  just,  would 
have  drawn  from  my  pen  a  rebuke  more  scathing  than  they  could  have  desired 
me  to  administer. 

But  if  such  testimony,  and  such  a  statement  on  my  part,  could  awaken  feelings 
in  their  breasts  which  could  only  be  appeased  by  a  sacrificial  offering  so  unholy,  I 
forgive  them.    I  do  more. 

Such  an  enemy  in  one's  own  bosom  must  be  like  the  Arch  Fiend  in  Paradise, 
administering  sweets  to  the  taste  to  create  bitterness  in  the  soul. 

To  the  injury  so  wantonly  inflicted,  I  am  by  no  means  insensible.  Yet  I  am 
happy  here  to  say,  in  all  sincerity,  that  the  man  does  not  live  tov/ard  whom  I 
cherish  an  unkind  feeling  ;  and  at  the  same  time  to  assure  the  Messrs.  Merriam 
that  they  have  my  best  wishes  that  misfortunes  may  never  overtake  them.  It  has 
always  given  me  sincere  gratification  to  hear  of  their  success.  I  hope  it  may  con- 
tinue, and  give  them  the  means  of  extensive  usefulness.  Yet  no  man's  mountain 
stands  so  firmly  that  it  may  not  be  shaken ;  nor  is  it  crowned  with  fruits  and 
verdure  so  rich  and  beautiful  that  it  may  not  be  made  desolate. 

They  are  in  possession  of  wealth  which,  but  for  misfortune,  would  have  been 
mine.  And  rather  than  misrepresent  and  abuse  me,  it  would  better  become  them 
to  send  me  a  copy  of  the  J)ictionary,  handsomely  bound,  accompanied  by  a  check 
for  a  liberal  amount  on  their  bankers,  with  a  kind  note  requesting  my  acceptance 


*  The  paragraph  in  the  attack  to  which  allusion  is  here  made  I  omitted  to  copy,  as  having 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question  pending ;  and  I  think  the  Messrs.  Merriam  themselves,  in  cooler 
moments,  and  under  the  influence  of  better  feelings,  will  regret  its  insertion  in  their  pam- 
phlet. 


11 

i 

of  both,  in  acknowledgment  of  riches  derived  from  the  large  Dictionary,  for  which, 
primarily^  they  have  been  so  greatly  indebted  to  my  efforts  and  misfortunes.  They 
can  well  afford  to  be  kind;  I  ask  them  only  to  be  just ;  and  now,  either  to  frankly 
confess,  through  their  pamphlets  and  newspapers,  that  they  have  misapprehended 
and  done  me  wrong,  or  publish  and  circulate  this,  my  third  letter  to  you,  as  widely 
as  they  have  circulated  their  unjustifiable  attack  on  me.  The  public  will  then  be 
in  a  position  to  render  an  intelligent  verdict  between  us. 

Respectfully  yours, 

S.  CONVERSE. 


Mr.  Converse^s  Notice  of  what  is  said  by  Messrs.  G.  Sf  C.  Merriam^  in  Relation 
to  the  preceding  ^^  Answer.** 

Schroon  Lake,  N.  Y.,  August  30,  1854. 
Mb.  Wobcesteh:  — 

Since  the  publication  of  my  answer  to  the  attack  made  on  me  by  Messrs.  G.  & 
C.  Merriam,  my  attention  has  been  called  to  a  new  pamphlet  of  theirs.  Whether 
you  will  think  proper  to  notice  it,  I  cannot  say.  If  you  should,  I  will  thank  you 
to  insert  this  letter. 

The  Messrs.  Merriam,  I  am  told,  arc  professors  of  the  Christian  Faith.  When, 
therefore,  they  had  read  my  answer  to  their  attack,  and  seen  that  I  had  given  them 
the  full  benefit  of  their  attack  in  connection  with  my  answer,  I  had  a  right  to  ex- 
pect from  them  a  frank  acknowledgment,  that  they  had  misapprehended,  and 
done  me  wrong,  or  a  prompt  publication  and  circulation  of  my  answer  in  full, 
coijxtensively  with  the  circulation  of  their  own  pamphlets.  But  surprised  as  I 
was  at  the  garbling  and  misrepresentation  contained  in  their  attack,  I  confess  my- 
self now  more  than  astonished.  In  looking  at  the  portion  of  theu*  pamphlet  pro- 
fcssedly  devoted  to  me,  the  question  was  irresistibly  forced  upon  me,  "  Can  these 
gentlemen  be  really  of  sane  mind  ?  " 

As  Christian  professors,  it  is  just  to  presume  that  they  each  have  a  Closet^  which 
they  do  not  neglect.  In  the  secret  communion  of  that  secret  and  sacred  retreat, 
let  me  request  them  in  all  kindness,  to  make  up  an  answer  for  themselves  to  the 
following  questions :  — 

First.  —  Was  it  consistent  with  truth,  justice,  or  honor,  or  with  the  precept  in 
the  Golden  Rule,  to  represent  me  in  their  pamphlet  as  having  made  an  attack  on 
Dr.  Webster,  his  Dictionaries,  or  his  Publishers  ?  I  have  made  no  attack  on 
either,  and  have  only  been  compelled  to  defend  myself  against  their  own  rude  and 
unprovoked  attack  on  me,  at  an  expense  I  am  poorly  able  to  bear. 

Secondly.  —  Was  it  consistent  with  truth,  justice,  or  honor,  to  represent  me  as 
having  thrown  out  "  dark  insinuations  about  Dr.  Webster,  which  I  hope  not  to  be 
constrained  to  divulge"  ?  I  have  made  no  insinuations  "  about  Dr.  Webster"  or 
any  other  man.  I  said  in  my  answer  to  their  attack,  "  This  brings  me  to  a  pas- 
sage in  my  intercourse  with  Dr.  Webster,  from  the  history  of  which  I  shall  not 
lift  the  veil.  He  has  gone  to  his  rest,  and  no  man  was  witness  to  our  interviews. 
Were  he  here,  he  would  answer  for  himself  and  would  confirm  my  statements." 
Also,  that  "  Dr.  Webster  did  not  mean  to  treat  me  unkindly  or  unjustly,"  and 
that  "  I  did  not  believe  he  would  have  made  the  concessions  he  did  but  for  a  de- 

*i 

I/* 


12 

sire  to  do  me  a  favor,'"  &c.  And  here  the  gentlemen  say  are  "dark  I'o^iinua' 
tions,"  which  I  have  expressed  the  hope,  thaJ  "I  shall  not  be  constraine(i4o<li*- 
vnlgc  "  !  I  only  ask  the  gentlemen  to  fevicyr  this  extraordinary  passage  in  their 
pamphlet,  in  an  honest  hour,  in  that  s'^ret  place  where  the  heart  is  naked  to  the 
eye  of  Him  who  searcheth  it.  No  misunderstanding  or  unkind  feeling  occurred 
or  existed  at  those  interviews,  but  there  are  grave  reasons,  not  personal  to  Dr. 
Webster  or  myself,  for  not  lifting  the  veil  from  their  whole  history.  Were  Dr. 
Webster  living,  it  would  give  him  pleasure  to  confirm  my  statements  and  to  tes- 
tify to  the  world  that  I  am  quite  as  well  acquainted  with  all  transactions  between 
him  and  myself  in  1828,  as  the  Messrs.  Merriam  can  pretend  to  be ;  although,  with 
distinguished  modesty,  they  have  undertaken  at  this  late  day  to  instruct  me  and 
the  public  in  the  matter. 

Tliirdly.  —  Was  it  consistent  with  truth,  justice,  or  honor,  to  wholly  pervert  what 
I  have  said  in  my  three  letters  addressed  to  you,  by  such  garbling  and  comments 
as  to  entirely  misrepresent  their  plain  intent  and  meaning  1 

Fourthly. — Is  it  consistent  with  truth,  justice,  or  honor,  to  send  out  their  gar- 
bled statements  and  misrepresentations,  and  refuse  to  circulate  in  connection  there- 
with my  answer  to  their  attack  on  me  ?  That  answer  contains  all  I  wish  to  say, 
in  reply  to  anything  they  have  said  or  can  say,  having  the  least  relevancy  to  the 
point  in  debate,  which  is  therein  clearly  and  fairly  stated,  although  in  their  last 
pamphlet  they  seem  to  have  quite  forgotten  it.  I  will  now  test  their  willingness 
to  let  the  truth  appear  to  their  readers.  I  propose  to  supply  them,  free  of  expense 
to  themselves,  with  such  number  of  copies  of  my  answer  to  their  attack  on  me,  as 
will  enable  them  to  send  a  copy  to  each  individual  to  whom  they  have  sent  the 
attack,  and  if  they  wish  it,  I  will  pay  them  a  fair  price  for  the  trouble  of  doing 
them  up,  and  the  postage  on  such  as  are  sent  by  mail.  Or  if  they  will  give  me 
a  list  of  the  names  of  those  to  whom  they  have  sent  their  attack,  I  will  save  them 
all  further  trouble  in  the  i/atter.  If  they  will  assure  me  that  they  will  so  circulate 
my  answer,  and  will  state  the  number  of  copies  required,  they  shall  be  supplied. 

Fifthly.  —  Was  it  consistent  with  justice  or  truth,  to  undertake  to  make  me  a 
party  to  their  controversy  with  you,  when  I  had  no  connection  with  it,  or  interest        ^ 
in  it,  whatever  1 

The  gentlemen  seem  willing  to  give  me  a  hundred  dollars  to  confess  myself  in 
error  in  this  dispute.  I  doubt  not  they  would  give  twice  the  amount,  to  feel  an 
honest  conviction  that  they  had  done  me  no  wrong,  and  were  not  wholly  in  the 
wrong  themselves.  They  have  repeatedly  complained  of  my  having  testified  to 
their  injury !  Is  it  not  marvellous,  that  testifying  to  your  integrity  and  honor,  in 
matters  between  us  in  1828,  should  work  such  terrible  injury  to  the  Messrs.  Mer- 
riam in  1 854  !  Were  they  as  truly  martyrs  as  their  zeal  to  be  thought  so  is  ap- 
parent, the  history  of  John  Rogers  would  be  totally  eclipsed  by  a  simple  narrative 
of  their  sufferings.  But  enough.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  make  a  reply  to  their 
very  extraordinary  misrepresentations  in  their  late  pamphlet,  and  my  health  is  so 
prostrated,  that  writing  is  a  painful  effort.  I  only  wish  the  gentlemen  to  review 
what  they  have  said,  and  settle  the  questions  I  have  proposed,  in  the  manner  sug- 
gested, and  to  circulate  my  answer  to  their  attack  as  requested. 

Very  faithfully  yours, 

S.  CONVERSE. 

^   ^-  ^         -     c- 


ci 


"^  ^ 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


LmRARv  Use 

' 

OCT  1  0  1959 

W^^DCD 

OCT  it>  *B§9 

FEB1119G9  03 

RECEIVED 

FEE20'6S-12AW 

LOAN  DEPT. 

i 

r.N.tA'o7.%i'          "--HS-^-a 

LIBRARY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  BEFORE  CLOSING  TIME 
ON  LAST  DATE  STAMPED  BELOW 


LIBRARY  USE 

-^  16  1966 

EU't.e.^l«tQ 

Tl 

■ 

LD  62A-50m-2,'64 
(E34948l0)9412A 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


''t  ^^ 


."^M 


